This Proxy Statement is being furnished to stockholders in connection with the solicitation of proxies by and on behalf of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of MFA Financial, Inc., a Maryland corporation (“MFA,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” or “us”), for exercise at MFA’s 2026 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) to be held on Wednesday, June 3, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time, or at any postponement or adjournment thereof.

If a proxy is properly authorized, submitted without specifying any instructions thereon and not revoked prior to the Annual Meeting, the shares of our common stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “Common Stock”), represented by such proxy will be voted (i) FOR the election of the two (2) nominees for director named in this Proxy Statement to serve on the Board until our 2029 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and until their successors are duly elected and qualify, (ii) FOR the ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2026, and (iii) FOR the advisory (non-binding) resolution to approve our executive compensation as disclosed in this Proxy Statement (“Say-on-Pay”).

As to any other business that may properly come before the Annual Meeting or any postponement or adjournment thereof, the persons named as proxy holders on your proxy card will vote the shares of Common Stock represented by properly submitted proxies in their discretion.

This Proxy Statement, the Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders and the related proxy card are first being sent and made available to stockholders on or about April 17, 2026.

This year’s Annual Meeting will once again be a virtual meeting that will be held over the Internet. We believe the use of the Internet to host the Annual Meeting enables expanded stockholder participation, reduces costs for both the Company and our stockholders and provides the same rights to participate as stockholders would have at an in-person meeting. You may attend the virtual Annual Meeting if you are a stockholder of record, hold a proxy for a stockholder of record or are a beneficial owner of our Common Stock with evidence of ownership. You may participate in the Annual Meeting by visiting www.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/MFA2026 (the “meeting website”) and entering the 16-digit control number included on your proxy card or your voting instruction form. You will be able to submit questions and, if you are a stockholder of record of our Common Stock or a proxy for a stockholder of record, vote your shares during the Annual Meeting.

Stockholders may submit questions after logging into the virtual meeting platform as described above by typing a question in the field below the caption “Ask a Question”, and clicking “Submit.” We will attempt to respond to as many questions that are pertinent to the Company as time allows. Questions that are substantially similar may be grouped and answered once to avoid repetition.

Additional information regarding the rules and procedures for participating in the Annual Meeting will be provided in our rules of conduct for the Annual Meeting, which stockholders can view once they have checked in and during the Annual Meeting on the meeting website.

Technical Assistance. The Annual Meeting will begin promptly at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time. We encourage you to access the Annual Meeting prior to the start time. Online access will begin at approximately 1:45 p.m. Eastern Time. The virtual Annual Meeting platform is fully supported across most browsers (Firefox, Chrome and Safari) and devices (desktops, laptops, tablets and cell phones) running the most updated version of applicable software and plug-ins. Participants should ensure they have a strong Internet connection wherever they intend to participate in the Annual Meeting. Participants should also allow plenty of time to log in and ensure that they can hear streaming audio prior to the start of the Annual Meeting.

If you encounter any difficulties while accessing the virtual Annual Meeting during the check-in or meeting time, a technical assistance phone number will be made available on the Annual Meeting registration page approximately 15 minutes prior to the start time of the Annual Meeting through the conclusion of the Annual Meeting.

This Proxy Statement is accompanied by our Annual Report to Stockholders for the year ended December 31, 2025 (the “2025 Annual Report to Stockholders”), which includes financial statements audited by KPMG LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, and their report thereon, dated February 20, 2026.

Stockholders will be entitled to one vote for each share of Common Stock held of record at the close of business on April 8, 2026 (the “Record Date”), with respect to (i) the election of the two (2) directors named in this Proxy Statement to serve on the Board until our 2028 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and until their successors are duly elected and qualify, (ii) the ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2026, (iii) the advisory (non-binding) Say-on-Pay vote and (v) any other proposal for stockholder action that may properly come before the Annual Meeting or any postponement or adjournment thereof.

As of the Record Date, we had issued and outstanding 101,596,232 shares of Common Stock.

Stockholders may own shares of Common Stock in one or more of the following ways: (i) directly in their name as the stockholder of record or (ii) indirectly through a broker, bank or other intermediary in “street name”.

If shares of Common Stock are registered directly in the stockholder’s name, we are sending proxy materials directly to the stockholder. As the holder of record, the stockholder has the right to give their proxy directly to our tabulating agent or to vote electronically during the virtual Annual Meeting via webcast. If the stockholder holds their shares in street name, the stockholder’s broker, bank or other intermediary is sending proxy materials to them, and the stockholder may direct the intermediary how to vote on their behalf by completing the voting instruction form that accompanies the proxy materials or following the instructions in the notice they received.

We utilize a “notice and access” model rather than mailing full sets of proxy materials to all of our stockholders, as we believe, among other things, that the Company benefits from the reduced costs associated with this method of delivery, and it is friendlier to the environment. Thus, pursuant to rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), we are making our proxy materials available to our stockholders electronically over the Internet rather than mailing the proxy materials to all our stockholders.

Accordingly, we are sending a Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials to our stockholders. All stockholders will have the ability to access the proxy materials, including this Proxy Statement and our 2025 Annual Report to Stockholders, on the website referred to in the Notice or to request a printed set of the proxy materials. Instructions on how to access the proxy

materials over the Internet or to request a printed set of such materials can be found in the Notice. In addition, stockholders may request to receive proxy materials in printed form by mail or electronically by e-mail on an ongoing basis.

In order to submit proxy voting instructions prior to the Annual Meeting, stockholders have the option to authorize their proxy by Internet, telephone or mail. Stockholders are requested to authorize a proxy to vote their shares of our Common Stock during the virtual Annual Meeting via webcast by using the dedicated Internet voting website or toll-free telephone number provided for this purpose. Specific instructions regarding the Internet and telephone voting options are described in the Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials previously mailed to you and/or on your proxy card. Alternatively, stockholders may authorize their proxy by completing, signing and dating their proxy card and returning it in the postage-prepaid envelope provided. Stockholders who authorize their proxy by using the Internet or telephone voting options do not need to also return a proxy card.

Internet and telephone voting are available through 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, for all shares.

Shares of Common Stock represented by properly submitted proxies received by us prior to the Annual Meeting will be voted according to the instructions specified on such proxies. Any stockholder submitting a proxy retains the power to revoke such proxy at any time prior to its exercise at the Annual Meeting by (i) delivering prior to the Annual Meeting a written notice of revocation to the attention of our Secretary at MFA Financial, Inc., One Vanderbilt Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, New York 10017, (ii) authorizing a later proxy by Internet or telephone or submitting a later-dated proxy card or (iii) voting electronically during the Annual Meeting via webcast. Attending the virtual Annual Meeting via webcast will not automatically revoke a stockholder’s previously submitted proxy unless such stockholder votes electronically during the Annual Meeting.

The presence, in person or by proxy, of stockholders entitled to cast a majority of all the votes entitled to be cast at the Annual Meeting on any matter shall constitute a quorum.

Assuming a quorum is present, the business scheduled to come before the Annual Meeting will require the following affirmative votes:

Abstentions and broker non-votes are each included in the determination of the number of shares present at the Annual Meeting for the purpose of determining whether a quorum is present.

An abstention is the voluntary act of directing your proxy to abstain or attending the Annual Meeting in person (via webcast over the Internet) and marking a ballot to abstain.

A broker non-vote occurs when a nominee (i.e., a broker) holding shares for a beneficial owner has not received instructions from the beneficial owner on a particular proposal for which the nominee is not permitted to exercise discretionary voting power under New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) rules, and therefore, the nominee does not cast a vote on the proposal.

Under NYSE rules, brokers are not permitted to vote shares held in their clients’ accounts on elections of directors or the non-binding Say-on-Pay vote (each of which is considered a non-routine matter), unless, in each case, the client (as beneficial owner) has provided voting instructions to the broker. The ratification of the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm is, however, a proposal for which brokers do have discretionary voting authority (although they may choose not to exercise such authority). If you hold your shares in “street name” (i.e., through a broker or other nominee), your broker or nominee will not

vote your shares on non-routine matters unless you provide instructions on how to vote your shares. You can instruct your broker or nominee how to vote your shares by following the voting procedures provided by your broker or nominee.

Abstentions do not count as votes cast on any of the election of directors, the ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP or the advisory (non-binding) Say-on-Pay vote and will have no effect on the results of such proposals.

Broker non-votes, if any, do not count as votes cast on the election of directors, the ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP or the advisory (non-binding) Say-on-Pay vote and will have no effect on the results of such proposals.

Pursuant to our Charter and Bylaws and the Maryland General Corporation Law, our business and affairs are managed under the direction of the Board. The Board is responsible for establishing broad corporate policies and for our overall performance and direction, but is not involved in our day-to-day operations. Members of the Board keep informed of our business by participating in meetings of the Board and its committees, by, among other things, reviewing analyses, reports and other materials provided to them and through discussions with our chief executive officer (“CEO”) and other executive officers.

We currently separate the roles of the Chairman of the Board (the “Board Chair”) and CEO, with the Board Chair held by a non-executive independent director. Under our Bylaws, the Board Chair does not automatically serve as CEO, and the Board Chair may be an executive or non-executive of the Company. At present, our Board believes that the separation of roles, while not required, fosters clear accountability and enhances the Board’s oversight of and independence from management, as well as assisting the Board’s ability to carry out its roles and responsibilities on behalf of stockholders. The Board also believes that the current leadership structure fosters effective decision making and alignment on corporate strategy. In addition, the Board believes that separation of the Board Chair and CEO roles strengthens risk management and allows our CEO to focus more of his time and energy on day-to-day management and operations of the business.

Laurie S. Goodman, an independent director, currently serves as our Board Chair. Among other things, the Board Chair: (1) presides at all meetings of the Board; (2) has the authority to call, and will lead, meetings and executive sessions of our independent and non-management directors; (3) consults with the CEO and the Board committee chairs in establishing the agenda for Board and Board committee meetings; (4) helps facilitate communication between the CEO and the Board; (5) acts as a liaison between the Board and management; (6) confirms the Board has a process of periodically assessing the effectiveness of the Board, its committees and individual directors and management; and (7) performs such other functions as may be designated from time to time. The Board Chair is elected annually by a majority of the directors then serving on the Board at the first meeting of the Board following the annual meeting of stockholders.

The Board is responsible for the oversight of MFA’s risk management. The Board oversees and monitors MFA’s risk management framework and reviews risks that may be material to us. As part of this oversight process, the Board periodically receives reports from management on areas of material risk to MFA, including operational, financial, interest rate, liquidity, credit, market, legal and regulatory, accounting, strategic, cyber (i.e., data protection and information security) and personnel risks. The Board receives these reports from the appropriate sources within MFA to enable it to understand our risk identification, risk management and risk mitigation strategies. To the extent applicable, the Board and its committees coordinate their risk oversight roles. As part of its written charter, the Audit Committee of the Board periodically discusses guidelines and policies to govern the process by which risk assessment and risk management, including major financial risk exposures, are undertaken by MFA and its management, and the

Compensation Committee of the Board oversees our compensation programs to ensure that they do not encourage unnecessary or excessive risk taking. The principal goal of these processes is to achieve thoughtful Board-level attention to (i) our risk management process and framework, (ii) the nature of the material risks we face, (iii) the adequacy of our risk management process and framework designed to identify, respond to and mitigate these risks and (iv) as necessary or appropriate, possible changes to our risk management process and framework to react to a fluid business environment.

MFA’s Corporate Governance Guidelines (the “Governance Guidelines”), which have been adopted and are periodically reviewed by the Board, provide that a majority of the directors serving on the Board must be independent as affirmatively determined by the Board in accordance with the rules and standards established by the NYSE. In addition, as permitted under the Governance Guidelines, the Board has also adopted certain additional categorical standards (the “Independence Standards”) to assist it in making determinations with respect to the independence of directors. Based upon its review of all relevant facts and circumstances, the Board has affirmatively determined that six of our seven current directors, Laurie S. Goodman, Robin Josephs, Lisa Polsky, Christopher Small, Sheila A. Stamps and Richard C. Wald, qualify as independent directors under the NYSE listing standards and the Independence Standards. Craig L. Knutson, by virtue of his position as our Chief Executive Officer, is not an independent director.

The Independence Standards can be found on our website at www.mfafinancial.com.

The Board has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (the “Code of Conduct”) that applies to our directors, officers and employees. The Code of Conduct was designed to assist directors, officers and employees in complying with the law, in resolving certain moral and ethical issues that may arise in the performance of their duties and in complying with our policies and procedures. Among the areas addressed by the Code of Conduct are compliance with applicable laws, conflicts of interest, use and protection of our assets, confidentiality, communications with the public, internal accounting controls, improper influence on the conduct of audits, records retention, fair dealing, discrimination and harassment, and health and safety. The Board’s Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for assessing and periodically reviewing the adequacy of the Code of Conduct and will recommend, as appropriate, proposed changes to the Code of Conduct to the Board.

The Code of Conduct can be found on our website at www.mfafinancial.com. We will also provide the Code of Conduct, free of charge, to stockholders who request it. Requests should be directed to the attention of our Secretary at MFA Financial, Inc., One Vanderbilt Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, New York 10017.

General. The Board has adopted the Governance Guidelines, which address significant issues of corporate governance and set forth procedures by which the Board carries out its responsibilities. Among the areas addressed by the Governance Guidelines are Board composition, Board functions and responsibilities, Board committees, director qualification standards, director resignations, director retirements, access to management and independent advisors, director compensation, management succession, director orientation and continuing education and Board and committee performance evaluations. The Board’s Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for assessing and periodically reviewing the adequacy of the Governance Guidelines and will recommend to the Board, as appropriate, proposed changes to the Governance Guidelines.

The Governance Guidelines can be found on our website at www.mfafinancial.com. We will also provide the Governance Guidelines, free of charge, to stockholders who request them. Requests should be directed to the attention of our Secretary at MFA Financial, Inc., One Vanderbilt Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, New York 10017.

Majority Voting for Directors/Director Resignation Policy. Our current Bylaws provide that a nominee for director will be elected by receiving the affirmative vote of a majority of the total votes cast for and against the election of such nominee at a meeting of

stockholders duly called and at which a quorum is present in a non-contested election (i.e., where the number of nominees is the same as the number of directors to be elected).

Under the terms of our Governance Guidelines, if a nominee for director who is an incumbent director is not elected by the vote required in our current Bylaws, and with respect to whom no successor has been elected, the director is required to promptly tender to the Board their offer to resign from the Board. Upon the recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, and no later than the next regularly scheduled Board meeting to be held at least ten days after the date of the election, the Board will decide whether or not to accept such offer to resign, and thereafter, it will promptly and publicly disclose its decision. The nominee may address the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and/or the Board but may not be present during deliberations or voting on whether to accept their resignation. If the Board determines not to accept the director’s offer to resign, the director will continue to serve on the Board until the next annual meeting of stockholders and until the director’s successor is duly elected and qualified or until the director’s earlier resignation or removal. The Board may consider any factors it deems relevant in deciding whether to accept a director’s resignation.

In a contested election, the director nominees who receive a plurality of votes cast are elected as directors. Under the plurality standard, the number of individuals equal to the number of directorships to be filled who receive more votes than other nominees are elected to the board, regardless of whether they receive a majority of votes cast.

Director Retirement Policy. The Governance Guidelines provide that no person who has reached the age of 75 at the time of their election or appointment as a director shall be elected or appointed as a director to the Board.

Overboarding Policy. The Governance Guidelines provide that directors who also serve as a chief executive officer or hold an equivalent position at another company should not serve on more than two other boards of public companies in addition to the Board, and other directors should not serve on more than four other boards of public companies in addition to the Board. In addition, a director appointed to the Audit Committee of the Board may not serve on more than two additional audit committees for publicly listed companies.

Insider Trading Policy. The Board has adopted the MFA Financial, Inc. Insider Trading Policy, which contains policies and procedures governing the purchase, sale and/or other dispositions of our securities by our directors, officers or other employees. Such policies and procedures are reasonably designed to promote compliance with insider trading laws, rules and regulations, and any listing standards applicable to us. A copy of our Insider Trading Policy was filed as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, which was filed with the SEC on February 20, 2025.

The Board has adopted written policies and procedures for review, approval and monitoring of transactions involving the Company and “related persons” (directors and executive officers, stockholders beneficially owning greater than 5% of our outstanding capital stock or immediate family members of any of the foregoing). The policy covers any related person transaction that meets the minimum threshold for disclosure in the Proxy Statement under the relevant rules of the SEC (generally, transactions involving amounts exceeding $120,000 in which a related person has a direct or indirect material interest). A summary of these policies and procedures is set forth below:

In accordance with the Governance Guidelines and its charter, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for identifying and evaluating director candidates for the Board and for recommending director candidates to the Board for consideration as nominees to stand for election at our annual meetings of stockholders. Director candidates are nominated to stand for election to the Board in accordance with the procedures set forth in the written charter of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

We seek highly qualified director candidates from a range of business, professional and educational backgrounds who combine a broad spectrum of experience and expertise with a reputation for the highest personal and professional ethics, integrity and values. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee periodically reviews the appropriate skills and characteristics required of our directors in the context of the current composition of the Board, our operating requirements and the interests of the Company. In accordance with the Governance Guidelines, director candidates should have experience in positions with a high degree of responsibility and decision making, be able to exercise good business judgment, be able to provide practical wisdom and mature judgment and be leaders in the companies or institutions with which they are or have been affiliated. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee reviews director candidates with the objective of assembling a slate of directors that can best fulfill and promote our goals and recommends director candidates based upon contributions they can make to the Board and management and their ability to represent MFA’s long-term interests and those of its stockholders.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee seeks to achieve a mix of directors with a variety of skills, backgrounds, experience and viewpoints, and we do not discriminate on any basis. We believe that a board comprised of individuals with multiple and varied backgrounds and points of view contributes to a more informed and effective decision-making process. In this regard, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers individuals’ professional experiences, skills, expertise and education in evaluating director candidates for Board membership and whether the candidates possess the personal attributes that will contribute to the sound functioning of our Board and the judicious stewardship of our company.

Upon determining the need for additional or replacement Board members, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee identifies director candidates and assesses such director candidates based upon information it receives in connection with the recommendation or which it otherwise possesses, which may be supplemented by certain inquiries. In conducting this assessment, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers knowledge, experience, skills and such other factors as it deems appropriate in light of our then current needs and those of the Board. If the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

determines, in consultation with other directors, that a more comprehensive evaluation is warranted, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may then obtain additional information about a director candidate’s background and experience, including by means of personal interviews. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will then re-evaluate the director candidate using its evaluation criteria. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receives input on such director candidates from other directors and recommends director candidates to the Board for nomination. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may, in its sole discretion, engage one or more search firms and/or other consultants, experts or professionals to assist in, among other things, identifying director candidates or gathering information regarding the background and experience of director candidates. If the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee engages any such third party, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will have sole authority to approve any fees or terms of retention relating to these services.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee accepts stockholder recommendations of director candidates and applies the same standards in considering director candidates submitted by stockholders as it does in evaluating director candidates recommended by members of the Board or management. Stockholders may make recommendations at any time, but recommendations of director candidates for consideration as director nominees at our next annual meeting of stockholders must be received not less than 120 days before the first anniversary of the date of the proxy statement for the prior year’s annual meeting of stockholders. Accordingly, to submit a director candidate for consideration for nomination at our 2027 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, stockholders must submit the recommendation, in writing, by no later than the close of regular business hours on December 21, 2026. The written notice must demonstrate that it is being submitted by a stockholder of MFA and include information about each proposed director candidate, including name, age, business address, principal occupation, principal qualifications and other relevant biographical information. In addition, the stockholder must provide confirmation of each recommended director candidate’s consent to serve as a director and contact information for each director candidate so that his or her interest can be verified and, if necessary, to gather further information.

The Board has established a process by which stockholders and/or other interested parties may communicate in writing with our directors, a committee of the Board, the Board’s non-employee directors as a group or the Board generally. Any such communications may be sent to the Board by U.S. mail or overnight delivery and should be directed to the attention of our Secretary at MFA Financial, Inc., One Vanderbilt Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, New York 10017, who will forward them to the intended recipient(s). Any such communications may be made anonymously. Unsolicited advertisements, invitations to conferences or promotional materials, in the discretion of our Secretary, are not required, however, to be forwarded to the directors. The Board has approved this communication process.

The independent directors serving on the Board meet in executive session at least four times per year at regularly scheduled meetings of the Board. These executive sessions of the independent directors are presided over by Laurie S. Goodman, in her capacity as the non-executive Chair of the Board.

MFA understands the importance of incorporating environmental and social considerations into its business and day-to-day operations, and we appreciate the increased interest of our stockholders in these matters. We consider the interests of all our stakeholders — our stockholders, employees, lenders and other counterparties, vendors and community — in pursuing the long-term success and best interests of our business.

MFA’s primary social considerations and impacts relate to our investment activity and human capital management, both of which are critical to our success as an organization.

As a provider of private capital to the U.S. housing market through our investments in residential mortgages, our business enhances liquidity in the residential real estate mortgage markets and, in turn, facilitates homeownership in the United States. As of December 31, 2025, MFA had approximately $12.3 billion in aggregate mortgage, mortgage-related and real estate investments.

As an employer, we have a responsibility to our most important asset, our employees. We recognize the importance of ongoing communication and engagement with our employees through direct channels, facilitated by our relatively small employee base. We are committed to providing our employees an engaging, supportive and inclusive atmosphere in which to grow professionally and contribute.

Finally, we pride ourselves on providing a wide selection of resources to protect our employees’ health, well-being, financial security and safety, and work-life balance, including:

As a specialty finance company that invests in and finances residential mortgage assets, including originating and servicing business purpose mortgage loans, our business operations have a relatively modest impact on the environment. Nonetheless, we strive to use resources efficiently and responsibly.

Our efforts to reduce our environmental impact include:

The Board is responsible for directing the management of our business and affairs. The Board conducts its business through meetings and actions taken by unanimous written consent in lieu of meetings. During the year ended December 31, 2025, the Board held six meetings and acted thirteen times by unanimous consent in lieu of a meeting. Each of our directors then serving on the Board attended at least 75% of the meetings of the Board (and of the Board’s committees on which they then served) that were held in 2025. All directors then serving on the Board attended our 2025 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The Board’s policy, as set forth in our Governance Guidelines, is to encourage and promote the attendance by each director at all scheduled meetings of the Board and all meetings of our stockholders.

The Board has three standing committees: the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

Audit Committee. Lisa Polsky (Chair), Laurie S. Goodman, Robin Josephs and Christopher Small are currently the members of the Audit Committee. The Board has determined that all of the members of the Audit Committee are independent as required by the NYSE listing standards, SEC rules governing the qualifications of audit committee members, the Governance Guidelines, the Independence Standards, the written charter of the Audit Committee and our Bylaws. The Board has also determined, based upon its qualitative assessment of their relevant levels of knowledge and business experience (see “Election of Directors” beginning on page 20 of this Proxy Statement for a description of their respective backgrounds and experience), that each of Ms. Polsky, Ms. Goodman, Ms. Josephs and Mr. Small qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” for purposes of, and as defined by, SEC rules and has the requisite accounting or related financial management expertise required by the NYSE listing standards. In addition, the Board has determined that all of the members of the Audit Committee are financially literate as required by the NYSE listing standards. During 2025, the Audit Committee held eight meetings.

The Audit Committee is responsible for, among other things, engaging our independent registered public accounting firm, reviewing with the independent registered public accounting firm the plans and results of their audit engagement, approving professional services to be provided by the independent registered public accounting firm, reviewing the independence of the auditors, considering the range of audit and non-audit fees, reviewing the adequacy of our internal controls, accounting and reporting practices and assessing the quality and integrity of our consolidated financial statements. In accordance with its charter, the Audit Committee has a policy requiring that the terms of all auditing and non-auditing services to be provided by our independent registered public accounting firm be pre-approved by the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee also reviews and evaluates the scope of all non-auditing services to be provided by our independent registered public accounting firm in order to confirm that such services are permitted by the rules and/or regulations of the NYSE, the SEC, the Financial Accounting Standards Board or other similar governing bodies. The specific responsibilities of the Audit Committee are set forth in its charter, which can be found on our website at www.mfafinancial.com.

Compensation Committee. Robin Josephs (Chair), Christopher Small, Sheila A. Stamps and Richard C. Wald are currently the members of the Compensation Committee. The Board has determined that all of the members of the Compensation Committee are independent as required by the NYSE listing standards, SEC rules governing the independence of compensation committee

members, the Governance Guidelines, the Independence Standards, the written charter of the Compensation Committee and our Bylaws. During 2025, the Compensation Committee held five meetings and acted five times by unanimous consent in lieu of a meeting.

The Compensation Committee is responsible for, among other things, overseeing the design, approval, administration and evaluation of MFA’s compensation plans, policies and programs and reviewing and establishing the compensation of our directors and executive officers. The specific responsibilities of the Compensation Committee are set forth in its charter, which can be found on our website at www.mfafinancial.com.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation. There are no compensation committee interlocks and no insider participation in compensation decisions that are required to be reported under the rules and regulations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Richard C. Wald (Chair), Laurie S. Goodman, Lisa Polsky and Sheila A. Stamps are currently the members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The Board has determined that all of the members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are independent as required by the NYSE listing standards, the Governance Guidelines, the Independence Standards, the written charter of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and our Bylaws. During 2025, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee held four meetings and acted once by unanimous consent in lieu of a meeting.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for, among other things, assisting the Board in identifying individuals qualified to become Board members, recommending to the Board the director nominees to stand for election by our stockholders, recommending to the Board the directors to serve on each of the Board’s committees, developing and recommending to the Board the corporate governance principles and guidelines applicable to the Company and directing the Board in an annual review of its performance. The specific responsibilities of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are set forth in its charter, which can be found on our website at www.mfafinancial.com.

We will provide the charter of any of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, free of charge, to stockholders who request them. Requests should be directed to the attention of our Secretary at MFA Financial, Inc., One Vanderbilt Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, New York 10017.

The Audit Committee of the Board is responsible for monitoring, on behalf of the Board, the integrity of MFA’s consolidated financial statements, the Company’s system of internal controls, the performance, qualifications and independence of its independent registered public accounting firm and its compliance with related legal and regulatory requirements. The Audit Committee has the sole authority and responsibility to select, determine the compensation of, evaluate the performance of and, when appropriate, replace MFA’s independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee operates under a written charter adopted by the Board.

Management has the primary responsibility for the Company’s financial reporting process, including the system of internal controls, for the preparation of consolidated financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and for the report on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. KPMG LLP, the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, is responsible for performing an independent audit of (i) the Company’s annual consolidated financial statements and expressing an opinion as to their conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and (ii) the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and expressing an opinion with respect thereto. The Audit Committee’s responsibility is to oversee and review the financial reporting process and to review and discuss management’s report on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. The Audit Committee is not, however, professionally engaged in the practice of accounting or auditing and does not provide any expert or other special assurance as to such financial statements concerning compliance with laws, regulations or accounting principles generally accepted in the United

States or as to auditor independence. The Audit Committee relies, without independent verification, on the information provided to it and on the representations made by the Company’s management and our independent registered public accounting firm.

During 2025, the Audit Committee held eight meetings. The meetings were designed, among other things, to facilitate and encourage communication among the Audit Committee, management, KPMG LLP, the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, and Grant Thornton LLP, the Company’s internal auditing firm.

The Audit Committee reviewed and discussed the audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, and the related report prepared by KPMG LLP, with management and KPMG LLP. The Audit Committee discussed with KPMG LLP and Grant Thornton LLP the overall scope and plans for their respective audits, including internal control testing under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The Audit Committee also reviewed and discussed with management, KPMG LLP and Grant Thornton LLP management’s annual report on MFA’s internal control over financial reporting and the report prepared by KPMG LLP with respect to its audit of MFA’s internal control over financial reporting. The Audit Committee met with KPMG LLP and Grant Thornton LLP, with and without management present, to discuss the results of their examinations, their evaluations of MFA’s internal control environment and the overall quality of MFA’s financial reporting.

The Audit Committee reviewed and discussed with KPMG LLP its audit plan for MFA and their proposed implementation of this plan. The Audit Committee also discussed with KPMG LLP matters that independent accounting firms are required to communicate to audit committees under the rules of the SEC, generally accepted auditing standards and standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”), including, among other things, matters related to the conduct of the audit of MFA’s consolidated financial statements and the matters required to be discussed by Auditing Standard No. 16, as adopted by the PCAOB, which included a discussion of KPMG LLP’s judgments about the quality (not just the acceptability) of MFA’s accounting principles as applied to financial reporting.

The Audit Committee also discussed with KPMG LLP its independence from the Company. KPMG LLP provided to the Audit Committee the written disclosures and the letter required by applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding the independent accountant’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence and represented that it is independent from MFA. When considering the independence of KPMG LLP, the Audit Committee considered whether services provided by KPMG LLP, beyond those rendered in connection with its audit of MFA’s consolidated financial statements, its reviews of MFA’s interim condensed consolidated financial statements included in MFA’s quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and its audit of the effectiveness of MFA’s internal control over financial reporting, were compatible with maintaining its independence. The Audit Committee reviewed and approved the audit and other professional services performed by, and the amount of fees paid for such services to, KPMG LLP.

The Audit Committee has adopted policies and procedures for the pre-approval of auditing and non-auditing services for the purpose of maintaining the independence of MFA’s independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee received periodic updates on the amount of fees and scope of audit and other professional services provided.

Based on the Audit Committee’s review and the outcome of these meetings, discussions and reports, and subject to the limitations on the Audit Committee’s role and responsibilities referred to above and in its written charter, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board, and the Board has approved, that MFA’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC and 2025 Annual Report to Stockholders. The Audit Committee has also selected and appointed KPMG LLP as MFA’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2026, and is presenting this appointment to the Company’s stockholders for ratification.

Lisa Polsky, Chair

Laurie S. Goodman

Robin Josephs

Christopher Small

The foregoing Report of the Audit Committee shall not be deemed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act to be (i) “soliciting material” or “filed” or (ii) incorporated by reference by any general statement into any filing made by us with the SEC, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate such report by reference.

Pursuant to the terms of its charter, the Compensation Committee is responsible for reviewing and making recommendations to the Board with respect to the compensation of the non-employee directors (the “Non-Employee Directors”) on the Board.

At present, we have the following compensation program for Non-Employee Directors:

Our Non-Employee Directors may also participate in our Fourth Amended and Restated 2003 Non-Employee Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Non-Employee Directors Plan”), which allows participants to elect to defer receipt of 50% or 100% of their annual cash fees and to elect whether to receive their equity-based compensation in the form of fully-vested shares of our Common Stock or fully-vested RSUs. Under the Non-Employee Directors Plan, cash amounts that are deferred are deemed to be converted into hypothetical “stock units,” which do not represent our capital stock, but rather the right to receive a cash payment equal to the fair market value of an equivalent number of shares of Common Stock. Deferred amounts (and the resultant hypothetical stock units), together with any dividend equivalents credited to outstanding stock units, increase or decrease in value as would an equivalent number of shares of Common Stock and are settled in cash at the termination of the deferral period, based on the value of the stock units at that time. Cash amounts deferred are generally subject to an initial five-year deferral period, which may be extended for an additional five years if the Non-Employee Director so elects. To the extent a Non-Employee Director elects to take their equity compensation in the form of RSUs, such RSUs will settle, in shares of Common Stock on a one-for-one basis after an initial five-year deferral period (subject to an additional five-year deferral if the director so elects).

The following table summarizes the compensation of our Non-Employee Directors for the year ended December 31, 2025.

The following table summarizes certain additional information regarding cash amounts deferred by our Non-Employee Directors participating in the Non-Employee Directors Plan as of December 31, 2025.

The Non-Employee Directors are subject to a share retention/alignment requirement pursuant to which each Non-Employee Director is required to hold and maintain equity in MFA, which could include Common Stock and/or RSUs under the Non-Employee Directors Plan (collectively, the “Equivalent Shares”), in an amount equal to no less than three times (3x) the annual cash retainer (currently $100,000 per year) payable to Non-Employee Directors. Generally, this retention requirement must be met within five years after becoming a director. As of the Record Date (the close of business on April 8, 2026), all of our current Non-Employee Directors have met this retention requirement, except Christopher Small, who was elected to the Board in March 2025.

The following table summarizes information regarding the number of Equivalent Shares owned by each of our current Non-Employee Directors as of the Record Date.

Non-employee directors are also eligible to receive other grants of Common Stock and phantom shares, as well as grants of stock options, under the Company’s Equity Compensation Plan. We also reimburse all Non-Employee Directors for reasonable travel and other expenses incurred in connection with attending Board, committee and stockholder meetings and other Company-sponsored events and/or other activities in which they engage or participate on our behalf. In addition, we provide all Non-Employee Directors with up to $500,000 of accidental death and dismemberment insurance while traveling to or attending Board, committee and stockholder meetings and other Company-sponsored events. Directors who are employees of the Company (currently, only Mr. Knutson) are not entitled to receive additional compensation for serving on the Board.

In accordance with our Charter and Bylaws, the Board is currently comprised of seven (7) directors, Laurie S. Goodman, Robin Josephs, Craig L. Knutson, Lisa Polsky, Christopher Small, Sheila A. Stamps and Richard C. Wald, and it is divided into three classes.

One class of directors is elected at each annual meeting of our stockholders for a term of three (3) years. Each director holds office until his or her successor has been duly elected and qualified or the director’s earlier resignation, death or removal. The term of the Board’s Class I directors expires at the Annual Meeting. The terms of the other two classes of directors expire at MFA’s 2027 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (Class II directors) and MFA’s 2028 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (Class III directors).

Upon the recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board, Ms. Goodman and Mr. Wald have been nominated by the Board to stand for election as Class I directors by the stockholders at the Annual Meeting to serve a term until our 2029 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and until their respective successors are duly elected and qualify. Ms. Goodman and Mr. Wald are currently directors of MFA, and each has consented to stand for election at the Annual Meeting.

If the candidacy of Ms. Goodman or Mr. Wald should, for any reason, be withdrawn prior to the Annual Meeting, the proxies will be voted by the proxy holders in favor of such substituted candidate or candidates (if any) as shall be nominated by the Board or the Board may determine to reduce its size.

The Board has no reason to believe that Ms. Goodman or Mr. Wald would be unable or unwilling to serve as Class I directors.

Set forth below is a summary of self-identified demographic characteristics for each of our directors, including Ms. Goodman and Mr. Wald, the nominees for election at the Annual Meeting. We also provide the same for our continuing Class II and Class III directors. The Board has determined that all of our current directors are qualified to serve as directors of the Company. The biographies of each of the Board’s nominees standing for election or re-election and of our continuing directors, which follow below, contain information regarding each person’s service as a director, business experience and education, director positions held currently or at any time during the last five years and the experience, qualifications, attributes or skills that caused the Board and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee to determine that the person should serve as a director.

In addition to the specific information set forth in their respective biographies, we believe that each of our directors also possesses the tangible and intangible attributes and skills that are important to being an effective director on the Board, including experience in areas of expertise relevant and beneficial to our business and industry, a willingness and commitment to assume the responsibilities required of a director of the Company and the character and integrity we expect of directors of the Company.

 

The following information is furnished regarding the nominees for election as our Class I directors by stockholders.

The following information is furnished regarding our Class II directors (who will continue to serve on the Board until our 2027 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and until their respective successors are duly elected and qualify).

The following information is furnished regarding our Class III directors (who will continue to serve on the Board until our 2028 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and until their respective successors are duly elected and qualify).

In accordance with our Charter and Bylaws, vacancies occurring on the Board as a result of death, resignation, retirement, disqualification, removal from office or other cause may be filled only by a majority of the remaining directors in office, even if the remaining directors do not constitute a quorum, and any director elected to fill a vacancy holds office for the remainder of the full term of the class of directors in which the vacancy occurred and until a successor is duly elected and qualifies.

There is no familial relationship among any of the members of our Board or executive officers.

On March 3, 2026 the Audit Committee of the Board appointed KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2026.

The Board is asking stockholders to ratify the Audit Committee’s appointment of KPMG LLP for 2026. In the event that stockholders fail to ratify the appointment, the Audit Committee will consider it a direction to consider other accounting firms for the subsequent year. Even if the selection is ratified, the Audit Committee, in its discretion, may direct the appointment of a different independent registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if it determines that such a change would be in the best interests of the Company.

KPMG LLP first audited our financial statements beginning with the year ended December 31, 2011.

One or more representatives of KPMG LLP are expected to be present at the Annual Meeting and will be provided with an opportunity to make a statement if so desired and to respond to appropriate inquiries from stockholders.

The following table summarizes the aggregate fees (including related expenses) billed to us for professional services provided by KPMG LLP in respect of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024.

All audit and other services provided to us were reviewed and pre-approved by the Audit Committee, which concluded that the provision of such services by KPMG LLP was compatible with the maintenance of that firm’s independence in the conduct of its auditing functions.

The Board recommends that stockholders vote “FOR” the ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2026.

The following table sets forth certain information with respect to each of our executive officers. The Board appoints or annually reaffirms the appointment of all of our executive officers:

Biographical information on Mr. Knutson is provided in “Election of Directors” of this Proxy Statement.

Bryan Wulfsohn serves as President and Chief Investment Officer. Mr. Wulfsohn joined MFA in 2010 and has served as President since September 2024 and Chief Investment Officer or Co-Chief Investment Officer since January 2019. Prior thereto, Mr. Wulfsohn served in various capacities at MFA, including Senior Vice President from 2015 through September 2024. From 2008 to 2010, Mr. Wulfsohn served as a Senior Financial Analyst at Inland Western Real Estate Trust, Inc., where he focused on corporate strategy. From 2005 to 2007, Mr. Wulfsohn served as an associate in the capital markets group at CBA Commercial, LLC, an acquirer and securitizer of small balance commercial mortgages. Mr. Wulfsohn holds a B.A. from Franklin and Marshall College, and he is a CFA charterholder.

Bryan Doran serves as Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer. Mr. Doran joined MFA in such capacities in December 2023. Prior to joining MFA, Mr. Doran was an audit partner at Ernst & Young LLP since 2016 in the Real Estate, Hospitality & Construction practice, in which he focused primarily on providing client services to publicly traded mortgage and equity REITs. Mr. Doran began his career at Ernst & Young in 2002. Mr. Doran is a Certified Public Accountant and holds a B.S. and M.S. in Accounting from St. John’s University.

Mei Lin serves as Senior Vice President and Co-Controller. Ms. Lin was appointed Co-Controller in December 2021. Ms. Lin joined MFA in 2018 as a First Vice President. From 2014 to 2018, Ms. Lin served as Vice President of Product Control for U.S. Mortgages at Jefferies LLC. From 2009 to 2014, Ms. Lin served as Vice President of Finance for C12 Capital Management, a hedge fund. Ms. Lin began her career in the financial services industry in 2006 at Barclays Capital Inc., where she served as Vice President of Product Control for Principal Mortgage Trading Group. Ms. Lin holds a B.A. in Finance from Remin University of China, and an M.B.A. in Finance from University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign, and she is a CFA charterholder.

Michael C. Roper serves as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Roper joined MFA in 2014 and was appointed Chief Financial Officer in September 2023. Mr. Roper previously served as our Chief Accounting Officer from December 2021

through September 2023, and prior thereto he served as our Controller. Prior to joining MFA, Mr. Roper was the Assistant Controller for Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. Mr. Roper began his career at Ernst & Young LLP primarily focusing on providing client services to publicly traded mortgage REITs. Mr. Roper is a Certified Public Accountant and holds a B.S. from Bentley University and an M.S. from Pace University.

Lori R. Samuels serves as Senior Vice President and Chief Loan Operations Officer. Ms. Samuels joined MFA in 2010 and has served as Chief Loan Operations Officer since September 2024. Prior thereto, Ms. Samuels held various asset management and loan operations positions since her joining MFA, and she has been a Senior Vice President of the Company since January 2016. Ms. Samuels began her career at Fitch Ratings, Inc. focusing on residential credit, and her experience also includes working at BNY Mellon. Ms. Samuels holds a B.B.A. with concentrations in finance and operations management from Emory University.

Harold E. Schwartz serves as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary. Mr. Schwartz joined MFA in 2011. From 2001 to 2011, Mr. Schwartz served as a Vice President and Senior Counsel for American Express Company, where he specialized in corporate, securities, corporate governance and mergers and acquisitions matters. Mr. Schwartz began his career working for the law firm of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP. Mr. Schwartz has a J.D. from Georgetown University and an A.B. from Duke University.

Natasha Seemungal serves as Senior Vice President and Co-Controller. Mrs. Seemungal was appointed Co-Controller effective December 2021. Mrs. Seemungal joined MFA in 2009 as an Accounting Analyst, and has served in various positions of progressive responsibility, including most recently as MFA’s Assistant Controller. Prior to joining MFA, Mrs. Seemungal began her career at The Estee Lauder Companies. Mrs. Seemungal holds a B.S and M.S in Accounting from St. John’s University College of Business Administration.

The following section discusses the key features of our executive compensation program and the approach taken by the Compensation Committee of the Board in setting and determining compensation for 2025 for:

The Compensation Committee oversees the design and administration of our compensation programs and makes decisions relating to the compensation of our Named Executive Officers. The Compensation Committee intends that the compensation paid to the Named Executive Officers be consistent with our overall compensation philosophy, as well as competitive with market practices.

The sections that follow describe:

It is the Compensation Committee’s role to review the Company’s executive compensation plans and programs and, after noting the outcome of the most recent stockholder advisory vote on executive compensation, make compensation decisions it believes are appropriate. Among other things, below is a summary of certain of the determinations made by the Compensation Committee with respect to 2025 compensation matters, and in particular with respect to Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn, our two most senior and most highly compensated employees, each of whom has an employment agreement with us. These items are discussed further within this CD&A and in the executive compensation tables and notes to the tables and other narratives regarding compensation matters, all of which follow.

Among other items, our 2025 performance included the following:

In addition, Mr. Wulfsohn was paid overall annual incentive compensation for the 2025 Performance Period of $1,455,500, which reflected a payment to him of approximately 112.0% of his overall “target” annual incentive award of $1,300,000 for 2025, as compared to the overall annual incentive compensation of $1,934,542 paid for the 2024 performance period, which reflected a payment of approximately 175.9% of his overall “target” annual incentive award for that year (which “target” was $1,100,000).

The decrease in annual incentive compensation for each of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn for 2025 as compared to 2024 was driven primarily by decreases in the payouts for the components of each executive’s annual bonus that are formulaically determined, which resulted from weaker financial performance during the 2025 Performance Period as compared to the 2024 performance period.

The table below summarizes the grant value and realized value of the principal components of compensation that were paid or vested during 2025 for each of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn.

At our Annual Meeting of Stockholders held in June 2025, approximately 96.9% of the votes cast with respect to the say-on-pay proposal voted to approve our executive compensation for 2024. The Compensation Committee has reviewed the results of the 2025 say-on-pay vote and believes that the significant support of MFA stockholders in this vote reflects support for MFA’s approach to executive compensation.

The Compensation Committee will continue to consider the outcome of Say-on-Pay votes and other stockholder input, as well as available market data, in making future decisions regarding executive compensation.

Through our executive compensation programs, we seek to attract, motivate and retain top quality senior executives who are committed to our core values of excellence and integrity. The Compensation Committee’s fundamental philosophy is to closely align these compensation programs with the achievement of annual and long-term performance goals tied to our financial success and the creation of stockholder value.

The Compensation Committee’s principal objectives in developing and administering the executive compensation programs are to:

The Compensation Committee periodically reviews and evaluates executive officer compensation levels and our compensation program. It is the Compensation Committee’s view that compensation decisions are complex and best made after a deliberative review of Company and individual performance, as well as industry compensation levels. Consistent with this view, the Compensation Committee assesses our performance within the context of the industry’s overall performance and internal performance standards and evaluates individual executive officer performance relative to the performance expectations for each such individual’s respective position, role and responsibilities within MFA.

The Compensation Committee benchmarks from time to time the compensation levels and practices relating to our Named Executive Officers and other executive officers against industry-based compensation levels and practices. While it is the Compensation Committee’s goal to provide compensation opportunities that reflect Company and individual performance and that are competitive within industry standards, the Compensation Committee has not established a specific target market percentile for executive officer pay levels, as pay practices and compensation levels among participants in our industry can vary significantly from one year to the next such that the use of a specific target market position would not necessarily reflect the Compensation Committee’s assessment of performance as the primary driver of pay levels.

The Compensation Committee has, in general, undertaken an annual review of MFA’s peer group methodology. The Compensation Committee has engaged in these reviews in part because it historically had been difficult to develop a peer group for executive

compensation purposes in the residential mortgage REIT sector due to the relatively small number of participants in the sector and the significant number of companies in the sector that were, until the last several years, externally advised. These externally advised companies had few, if any, employees that were compensated directly and/or fully by the REIT. Rather, such persons’ compensation was paid by the external manager of the REIT, and as a result, the REIT itself was required to disclose publicly little to no compensation information regarding its executives. Furthermore, the Compensation Committee believed that any peer group for compensation purposes that was comprised solely of internally advised residential mortgage REITs would not have been a large enough group to provide meaningful comparative information. In light of the “internalization” of several residential mortgage REITs over the past several years, additional compensation information has become available for the Compensation Committee to consider as it makes decisions regarding the structure, design and pay levels of our executive compensation program. Nonetheless, a number of companies in the residential mortgage REIT sector continue to remain externally advised, which limits the amount of compensation information that is available to inform the Compensation Committee.

The Compensation Committee has developed a peer group that also includes a number of other real estate-focused finance companies in both the residential and commercial sectors, the executives of which are required to have similar skills and experience as the executives of MFA, including the evaluation of credit risk, interest rate risk and allocation of capital (which are skills required in connection with the evaluation of residential whole loans, business purpose loans, residential mortgage-backed securities and other residential mortgage-related assets). In addition, the Compensation Committee has also considered for inclusion in the peer group companies that identify MFA as a peer, that identify peers as peers in their own peer group, and companies that have, in prior years, been identified by the proxy advisory firms as being comparable to MFA in their evaluation of MFA in connection with developing their annual Say-on-Pay vote recommendation.

The Compensation Committee notes that the peer group does not include externally managed mortgage REITs because comprehensive compensation data for their executives are generally not publicly available. In addition, the Compensation Committee has not included generally higher-paying private equity firms and hedge funds with which MFA must compete for executive talent. These organizations have not been included in the peer group because they have different business economics and pay models from ours and because comprehensive compensation data for these firms are generally not publicly available.

With the above in mind, in the spring of 2025, the Compensation Committee, in consultation with its independent consultant, Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (“FW Cook”), identified the following companies against which Company performance would be compared and compensation practices would be reviewed (the majority of which are the same companies identified by the Compensation Committee to inform its 2024 compensation decisions):

For 2025, the Compensation Committee modified the peer group by adding Trinity Capital Inc. and Velocity Financial, Inc. to the group. The Compensation Committee believes these companies are comparable to MFA in size and line of business, have compensation practices that are comparable to those of MFA and compete for executive talent with skills and experience similar to those possessed by MFA’s executive management. In addition, for 2025, the Compensation Committee removed from the peer

group Granite Point Mortgage Trust (GPMT), Mr. Cooper Group, Inc. (COOP) and PennyMac Financial Services, Inc. (PFSI), as the Compensation Committee believed that such companies were no longer comparable in size, line of business and/or compensation practices to those of MFA. Further, in the case of Mr. Cooper Group, it was being acquired by another company and is no longer an independent entity.

The Compensation Committee believes that it is important to create compensation programs that appropriately balance short-term, cash-based compensation with long-term, equity-based compensation. Our executive officer compensation program includes the following primary components:

In addition to the primary components of the executive officer compensation program, we maintain our Senior Officers Deferred Bonus Plan (the “Senior Officers Plan”). The Senior Officers Plan (a description of which can be found on page 50 and pages 60 to 61 of this Proxy Statement) permits our executive officers to defer, at their election, up to 100% of their annual bonus compensation in the form of hypothetical “stock units”. The performance of the deferred stock units is tied to the performance of our Common Stock. At present, none of our executive officers has any amounts deferred under the Senior Officers Plan.

We do not provide perquisites or other benefits to our Named Executive Officers, as the Compensation Committee believes in prioritizing variable, at-risk compensation. Our Named Executive Officers receive the same benefits available to our other salaried employees (a summary of which can be found on page 11 of this Proxy Statement).

The discussion below regarding our primary elements of compensation and the Compensation Committee’s decisions for 2025 reflects the terms and conditions of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn’s employment agreements that were in effect during 2025. Likewise, the discussion regarding Mr. Roper, Ms. Samuels and Mr. Schwartz reflects their compensation arrangements with the Company for 2025.

As indicated above, the compensation of our Named Executive Officers is comprised of three principal elements, summarized in the following chart:

The following discussion provides additional explanation about each of the elements of compensation described above.

Base Salary. We provide the Named Executive Officers with annual base salaries to provide them with a base level of fixed compensation for their services provided during the term of their employment. From time to time, the Compensation Committee reviews market analyses and considers the advice of its independent compensation consultant in setting base salaries.

Consistent with the Compensation Committee’s overall philosophy, the compensation program for the Named Executive Officers is expected to continue to emphasize incentive compensation over base salary. However, the Compensation Committee does not have a pre-set mix or target of base salary to incentive compensation awards for the Named Executive Officers.

Annual Incentives. For 2025, we had the following types of annual incentive programs for our Named Executive Officers:

Pursuant to the terms of the employment agreements that we have in place with each of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn, each executive was eligible to receive an annual performance-based bonus based on the Company’s and his individual performance during the 2025 Performance Period (i.e., the 12-month period beginning on December 1, 2024, and ending on November 30, 2025). Under the terms of his employment agreement Mr. Knutson’s “target” annual bonus (the “Overall Target Bonus”) for the 2025 Performance Period was $2,020,000 (which reflected an increase of $20,000 from his Overall Target Bonus for the 2024 performance period), and Mr. Wulfsohn’s Overall Target Bonus for the 2025 Performance Period was $1,300,000 (which reflected an increase of $200,000 from his Overall Target Bonus for the 2024 performance period, which target was established prior to Mr. Wulfsohn’s being promoted to President and sole Chief Investment Officer of MFA in the third quarter of 2024).

Each of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn’s respective employment agreement provides that his annual bonus is comprised of two components:

With respect to the Formulaic Bonus, for the 2025 Performance Period the target amount of the Formulaic Bonus (the “Target Formulaic Bonus”) for Messrs. Knutson and Wulfsohn was equal to 75% of his Overall Target Bonus. Based on his Overall Target Bonus, for the 2025 Performance Period Mr. Knutson’s Target Formulaic Bonus was $1,515,000, with 30% ($454,500) of the Target Formulaic Bonus allocated to the Adjusted GAAP ROAE Bonus, 30% ($454,500) allocated to the Distributable Earnings ROAE Bonus and 40% ($606,000) allocated to the Relative DE ROAE Bonus. Similarly, based on Mr. Wulfsohn’s Overall Target Bonus, for the 2025 Performance Period his Target Formulaic Bonus was $975,000, with 30% ($292,500) of the Target Formulaic Bonus allocated to the Adjusted GAAP ROAE Bonus, 30% ($292,500) allocated to the Distributable Earnings ROAE Bonus and 40% ($390,000) allocated to the Relative DE ROAE Bonus. Each of Mr. Knutson’s and Mr. Wulfsohn’s respective employment agreement provides that he is eligible to receive from zero to 200% of his Target Formulaic Bonus.

Calculation of Adjusted GAAP ROAE.

For the 2025 Performance Period, the determination of the Adjusted GAAP ROAE Bonus was based on a methodology identical to that used for the 2024 performance period, which reflects certain adjustments to the Company’s GAAP net income and GAAP stockholders’ equity. For purposes of determining the 2025 Adjusted GAAP ROAE Bonus, “Adjusted GAAP ROAE” was calculated by dividing (i) our net income available to common stockholders and participating securities for the 2025 Performance Period as determined in accordance with GAAP (but excluding the impact of certain non-cash expense items such as depreciation, amortization of intangible assets and such other non-cash expense items as may be determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board) (“Adjusted GAAP Earnings”) by (ii) our average total stockholders’ equity (based on stockholders’ equity as of the last day of each month during the performance period) as determined in accordance with GAAP (but excluding accumulated other

comprehensive income (or loss), stockholders’ equity attributable to preferred stock, goodwill and intangible assets and such other items as may be determined by the Compensation Committee) (“Adjusted Average Equity”).

Calculation of Distributable Earnings ROAE.

For the 2025 Performance Period, the determination of the Distributable Earnings ROAE Bonus was identical to and based on a methodology that makes use of the “Distributable earnings” measure of the Company’s operating performance. For purposes of determining the Distributable Earnings ROAE Bonus, the calculation of distributable earnings is determined using the same methodology used by the Company in reporting “Distributable earnings” in its quarterly financial results (“Distributable Earnings”). More specifically, for purposes of determining the 2025 Distributable Earnings ROAE Bonus, “Distributable Earnings ROAE” was calculated by dividing (i) Distributable Earnings by (ii) Adjusted Average Equity.

Distributable earnings (as reported by the Company in its quarterly financial results) is determined by adjusting GAAP net income/(loss) by removing certain unrealized gains and losses, primarily on residential mortgage investments, associated debt, and hedges that are, in each case, accounted for at fair value through earnings, certain realized gains and losses, as well as certain non-cash expenses and securitization-related transaction costs. The transaction costs are primarily comprised of costs only incurred at the time of execution of our securitizations and include costs such as underwriting fees, legal fees, diligence fees, bank fees and other similar transaction related expenses.

Use of Adjusted GAAP ROAE and Distributable Earnings ROAE.

The Compensation Committee has, from time to time, reviewed the appropriateness of using return on common equity (or a measure derived therefrom) as a principal financial metric on which to evaluate Company performance and, in turn, on which to determine a portion of the annual bonuses for our CEO and certain other senior executives. The Compensation Committee believes that return on common equity is an appropriate measure to evaluate annual Company performance and to serve as the basis for determining Mr. Knutson’s and Mr. Wulfsohn’s annual bonus (but with the adjustments to the calculation of such measure as described above). As a company whose primary source of earnings is income from the performance of investments in mortgage-related assets, the Compensation Committee believes that return on common equity generally provides an appropriate measurement of our financial performance and is reflective of how effectively we select our investments, manage our cost of capital and debt leverage, and ultimately, how efficient we are in generating earnings against our capital base.

The Compensation Committee, with the assistance of FW Cook, periodically reviews the overall structure of the annual incentive component of our most senior executives’ compensation. The Compensation Committee continues to believe that it is appropriate to use, in large part, a formulaic approach for the determination of our most senior executives’ bonuses (which approach was first adopted in 2014) with a methodology continuing to be based on measures of return on common equity. This belief is premised in large part on the nature of MFA’s business model, which has historically focused on investing in residential mortgages, mortgage-related debt instruments and other mortgage-related assets, and more recently, on the origination and servicing of business purpose mortgage loans on residential properties. Returns that MFA can earn on new real estate-related debt investments are, to a certain extent, correlated with the market-driven interest rates for these and other types of debt instruments (which rates depend, among other factors, on the perceived risk of these investments). These market-driven interest rates are typically analyzed as the risk-free interest rate for investment in U.S. Treasury obligations (or other debt backed by the full faith and credit of the United States) with a comparable duration (which is a measure of the price sensitivity of an asset to changes in interest rates) plus an incremental risk premium above the risk-free rate.

Formulaic Bonus for 2025.

In an effort to address year-to-year changes in our operating environment and changes in our business and the mix of our investment assets, as well as to retain flexibility to refine the use of ROAE to respond to changes in financial conditions, the Compensation Committee sets performance goals and targets on an annual basis, which may include performance goals based on ROAE as well as other objective performance measures. For the 2025 Performance Period, the Compensation Committee, in

consultation with FW Cook, determined that it was appropriate, similar to 2024, to base Mr. Knutson’s and Mr. Wulfsohn’s Formulaic Bonus not only on the achievement of performance goals with respect to Adjusted GAAP ROAE (which has been the measure historically used by the Compensation Committee), but also to base a portion of the Formulaic Bonus on the achievement of performance goals with respect to Distributable Earnings ROAE.

Further, for the 2025 Performance Period, the Compensation Committee used, similar to its use for the 2024 performance period, a relative component to each of Mr. Knutson’s and Mr. Wulfsohn’s Formulaic Bonus by making a portion of the Formulaic Bonus that could be earned based on a comparison of the Company’s Distributable Earnings ROAE for the four calendar quarters beginning October 1, 2024 and ending September 30, 2025 (the “Relative DE ROAE Performance Period”), relative to a peer group of mortgage REITs and other mortgage finance companies selected by the Compensation Committee for the same period. The Compensation Committee selected as the peer group those companies (excluding MFA) comprising the iShares Mortgage Real Estate ETF (Symbol: REM) as of December 31, 2024 (such group referred to as the “Relative DE ROAE Peer Group”). A list of these companies can be found in Appendix A to this Proxy Statement. The Compensation Committee established the four calendar quarters beginning October 1, 2024 and ending September 30, 2025, as the measurement period for the determination of the Relative DE ROAE Bonus because the peer group companies do not report (and the Company is unable to obtain) earnings information for the 12-month period (December 1 through November 30) that has historically constituted the performance period that the Compensation Committee has used to evaluate our executives’ annual bonuses.

The Compensation Committee’s determination to use a measure of ROAE based on Distributable Earnings is based on the belief that Distributable Earnings is a meaningful measure of MFA’s operating performance, as the calculation of Distributable Earnings for purposes of determining the Distributable Earnings ROAE Bonus excludes, principally, the impact of gains and losses on the Company’s investment assets, hedges and liabilities, which can be amplified in volatile interest rate markets and may distort the earnings potential of such investment assets (which the Board factors into the determination of dividends on Common Stock) and longer-term performance of these investment assets. In this regard, the Compensation Committee believed the use of Distributable Earnings ROAE would be a particularly meaningful measure to evaluate Company performance, in light of the volatility in interest rates that began to assert itself in the fourth quarter of 2021 and continued throughout 2022 and 2023 (and to a lesser degree during 2024 and 2025).

Adjusted GAAP ROAE Bonus and Distributable Earnings ROAE Bonus. With the above in mind, the Compensation Committee established the following levels of Adjusted GAAP ROAE for the purpose of determining the amount of the Adjusted GAAP ROAE Bonus that could be earned by each of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn for the 2025 Performance Period:

To the extent that our Adjusted GAAP ROAE for the 2025 Performance Period were to be greater than the threshold Adjusted GAAP ROAE level of 4.00% but less than 16%, then the executive would be paid a multiple of between zero and two times his target Adjusted GAAP ROAE Bonus, with the executive being paid the target amount ($454,500 in the case of Mr. Knutson and $292,500 in the case of Mr. Wulfsohn) to the extent that MFA’s Adjusted GAAP ROAE equaled the Adjusted GAAP ROAE Target for the 2025 Performance Period.

In addition, the Compensation Committee established the following levels of Distributable Earnings ROAE for the purpose of determining the amount of the Distributable Earnings ROAE Bonus that could be earned by each of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn for the 2025 Performance Period:

To the extent that MFA’s Distributable Earnings ROAE for the 2025 Performance Period were to be greater than the threshold Distributable Earnings ROAE level of 5.5% but less than 14.50%, then the executive would be paid a multiple of between zero and two times his target Distributable Earnings ROAE Bonus, with the executive being paid the target amount ($454,500 in the case of Mr. Knutson and $292,500 in the case of Mr. Wulfsohn) to the extent that MFA’s Distributable Earnings ROAE equaled the Distributable Earnings ROAE Target for the 2025 Performance Period.

The Compensation Committee considered several factors in establishing the Adjusted GAAP ROAE target of 10.00% and the Distributable Earnings ROAE Target of 10.00% for the 2025 Performance Period. In particular, prior to establishing the performance levels for threshold, target and maximum payouts for each component of the Formulaic Bonus, the Compensation Committee reviewed and was informed by the Company’s internal forecasts for 2025, which were presented to it and the full Board. Based on the Compensation Committee’s review of this information and macroeconomic factors, as well as its consideration of the investing and interest rate environment at the time of its review, the Compensation Committee believed that the prior year’s Adjusted GAAP ROAE “target” of 9.25% was no longer appropriate and that a higher Adjusted GAAP ROAE target was merited in order to appropriately incent management, while not encouraging it to undertake undue risks to achieve target performance. At the same time, the Compensation Committee recognized that in light of the methodology used to calculate Distributable Earnings, an Distributable Earnings ROAE target of 10.00% (as compared to an analogous target of 9.25% for the 2024 performance period) was a level that would appropriately incent management for the 2025 Performance Period.

Relative DE ROAE Bonus. With respect to the Relative DE ROAE Bonus, the Compensation Committee determined that the Company’s Distributable Earnings ROAE for the Relative DE ROAE Performance Period would be measured and ranked against the Distributable Earnings ROAE of the companies in the Relative DE ROAE Peer Group (excluding, as indicated above, MFA) for the same period. The Compensation Committee adopted the following parameters for the purpose of determining the amount of the Relative DE ROAE Bonus that could be earned by each of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn for the performance period.

To the extent MFA’s Distributable Earnings rank for the Relative DE ROAE Performance Period were to be:

To the extent that MFA’s Distributable Earnings rank for the Relative DE ROAE Performance Period were to be greater than the “threshold” percentile level (25th percentile) but less than the “target” percentile level (50th percentile), then the executive would be paid a multiple of between 37.5% and 100% of his respective target Relative DE ROAE Bonus (with the actual amount to be paid determined through linear interpolation). To the extent that MFA’s Distributable Earnings rank for the Relative DE ROAE Performance Period were to be greater than the “target” percentile level but less than the “maximum” percentile level (80th percentile), then the executive would be paid a multiple of between 100% and 200% of his target Relative DE ROAE Bonus (with the actual amount to be paid determined through linear interpolation).

For purposes of determining the Relative DE ROAE Bonus, the distributable earnings ROAE for the Relative DE ROAE Performance Period for each company in the Relative DE ROAE Peer Group would be determined based on each such company’s publicly reported distributable earnings, and to the extent that a company in the peer group did not report a distributable earnings metric, it would be excluded from the ranking altogether (thereby reducing the number of companies used in determining the Relative DE ROAE Bonus).

The Compensation Committee continues to believe that it is also important for the committee to retain a discretionary component of the annual incentive award process in order to be able to factor non-objective and non-quantifiable measures into the bonus decision-making process. With this in mind under the terms of Mr. Knutson’s and Mr. Wulfsohn’s employment agreements, for each performance period, the target amount of each executive’s IRM Bonus (the “Target IRM Bonus”) is equal to 25% of his Overall Target Bonus. For the 2025 Performance Period, the Target IRM Bonus for Mr. Knutson was $505,000 (which reflected an increase of $5,000 from Mr. Knutson’s Target IRM Bonus for the 2024 performance period), and the Target IRM Bonus for Mr. Wulfsohn was $325,000 (which reflected an increase of $50,000 from Mr. Wulfsohn’s Target IRM Bonus for the 2024 performance period). Each executive’s employment agreement provides that he is eligible to receive from zero to 200% of his respective Target IRM Bonus.

The actual amount of the IRM Bonus to be paid to each of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn is determined by the Compensation Committee in its discretion based upon factors it deems relevant and appropriate, including, without limitation, MFA’s total stockholder return (“TSR”) (both on an absolute basis, as well as relative to relevant indices and other similarly situated companies), overall management of risk and asset selection in generating our returns and the executive’s individual performance.

Long-Term Incentive Awards. Under our Equity Compensation Plan the Compensation Committee has available to it a portfolio of equity compensation vehicles, including shares of Common Stock, RSUs, dividend equivalent rights, stock options and other stock-based awards. The Compensation Committee uses this incentive compensation program to award Named Executive Officers with long-term incentives, including in connection with entering into or extending the term of employment agreements or other employment arrangements. The Compensation Committee makes these awards in its discretion without any pre-set target levels; however, in determining LTIAs, the Compensation Committee may consider the advice of its compensation consultant.

Under the terms of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn’s employment agreement as in effect during the 2025 Performance Period, each executive was entitled to a grant of RSUs, consisting of TRSUs and a “target” amount of PRSUs. More specifically, for 2025, Mr. Knutson was granted TRSUs with a grant date value of approximately $1,632,000 (which reflected an increase of $32,000 as compared to 2024) and a “target” number of PRSUs with a grant date value of approximately $2,448,000 (which reflected an increase of $48,000 as compared to 2024), and Mr. Wulfsohn was granted TRSUs with a grant date value of approximately $900,000 (which reflected an increase of $210,000 as compared to 2024) and a “target” number of PRSUs with a grant date value of approximately $1,350,000 (which reflected an increase of $315,000 as compared to 2024) .

TRSUs. Subject to exceptions in certain circumstances described below in “Potential Payments upon Termination of Employment or Change in Control” found on pages 65 to 69 of this Proxy Statement, each grant of TRSUs to each executive will vest on the third December 31st to occur following the date of grant, subject to his continued employment with the Company. In addition, subject to exceptions in certain circumstances (including, in Mr. Knutson’s case, a voluntary retirement), unvested TRSUs will be forfeited as of the date of his termination of employment with the Company. Upon vesting, each executive will receive one share of our Common Stock for each TRSU that vests. With respect to the TRSU grants made in 2025, the executives receive dividend equivalent payments as and when dividends are paid on our Common Stock during the period in which TRSUs are outstanding.

PRSUs. Subject to exceptions in certain circumstances described below in “Potential Payments upon Termination of Employment or Change in Control,” each grant of PRSUs to each executive will vest on the last day of the applicable three-year performance period, subject to the achievement of the TSR-based objectives described below and his continued employment with the Company.

Of the target amount of PRSUs granted to each executive under his employment agreement, one-half of such target amount will vest based on the Company’s level of absolute TSR (“Absolute TSR”) during the applicable three-year performance period (such PRSUs referred to as the “Absolute TSR PRSUs”) and one-half of such target amount will vest based on the Company’s level of TSR during the applicable three-year performance period relative to the TSR of a peer group of companies (“Relative TSR”) designated by the Compensation Committee at the time of each grant (such PRSUs referred to as the “Relative TSR PRSUs”).

With respect to the Absolute TSR PRSUs, the actual number of PRSUs that will be earned and that will vest will be based on the level of our cumulative total stockholder return (i.e., share price appreciation or depreciation, as the case may be, plus dividends divided by initial share price) relative to an average 8% per annum simple TSR (assuming no reinvestment of dividends) for the three-year performance period beginning on January 1st of the year of grant (e.g., the performance period for the PRSUs granted in 2025 is January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2027). To determine the actual number of PRSUs that will be earned and will vest, the “target” amount of each grant of PRSUs will be adjusted up or down at the end of the applicable three-year performance period based on the Company’s cumulative TSR relative to an average 8% per annum simple TSR objective from 0% of the target amount (reflecting 0% per annum TSR during the performance period) to up to 200% of the target amount (reflecting an average of 16% per annum (or higher) TSR during the performance period), with 100% of the target amount being earned and vesting if TSR of an average 8% per annum is achieved during the performance period.

With respect to the Relative TSR PRSUs, the actual number of PRSUs that will be earned and that will vest will be based on the Company’s cumulative TSR during the applicable three-year performance period beginning on January 1st of the year of grant as compared to the cumulative TSR of designated peer group companies for such performance period. To the extent that the Company’s TSR rank is less than or equal to the 25th percentile when compared to the TSR of the members of the peer group, each of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn will vest in 0% of the target number of Relative TSR PRSUs awarded to him in respect of the applicable performance period. To the extent that the Company’s TSR rank is in the 50th percentile, each executive will vest in 100% of the target number of Relative TSR PRSUs awarded to him in respect of the applicable performance period. To the extent that the Company’s TSR rank is greater than or equal to the 80th percentile, each executive will vest generally in 200% of the target number of Relative TSR PRSUs awarded to him in respect of the applicable performance period. To the extent that the Company’s TSR ranking falls in between the percentiles identified above, the number of Relative TSR PRSUs that vest will be interpolated.

With respect to the Relative TSR PRSUs, regardless of the Company’s TSR rank, in no event will an executive vest in more than 100% of the target number of Relative TSR PRSUs to the extent the Company’s absolute TSR for the applicable performance period is less than zero.

PRSUs that do not vest at the end of an applicable performance period will be forfeited. Upon vesting, each executive will receive one share of the Company’s common stock for each PRSU that vests, provided that the fair market value of the shares of Common Stock delivered upon settlement may not exceed 400% of the grant date value of the PRSUs granted in respect of the completed performance period. Any PRSUs that vest are subject to an additional one-year deferral prior to settlement, subject to accelerated payout under certain circumstances.

Dividend equivalents are not paid in respect of the PRSUs during the performance period. Rather, dividend equivalents accrue with respect to the PRSUs during the performance period, and to the extent that the underlying PRSUs vest, an amount equal to the accrued dividend equivalents related to the vested PRSUs will be paid to each executive in the form of additional shares of our Common Stock based on the closing price of the Common Stock on the vesting date.

The following discussion addresses the actions taken by the Compensation Committee during 2025 regarding the base salaries, annual incentives and long-term equity awards for the Named Executive Officers.

The Compensation Committee believes that the annual base salary paid in 2025 to each of the Named Executive Officers appropriately reflected the scope of the role and responsibilities of the applicable position, individual performance and experience and competitive market practices. The annual base salary for each of the Named Executive Officers during 2025 is set forth in the table below. The amount paid to each of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Roper reflected an increase of $25,000 to each executive’s base salary as compared to 2024, which the Compensation Committee determined to be appropriate following a review of market data. The amount paid to each of Mr. Wulfsohn and Ms. Samuels reflected an increase of $75,000 to each executive’s base salary as compared to 2024, which the Compensation Committee determined to be appropriate in light of each such executive’s promotion to their current role in September 2024 and following a review of market data. The amount paid to Mr. Schwartz reflected no adjustment to his base salary as compared to his base salary for 2024.

Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn. The annual incentive award opportunity for each of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn consisted of both the Formulaic Bonus (see pages 40 to 44 above) and the discretionary IRM Bonus (see page 44 above). A discussion of the Compensation Committee’s determination of each of these components is set forth below.

Formulaic Bonus. Under the methodology for determining the Adjusted GAAP ROAE Bonus, Adjusted GAAP ROAE for the 2025 Performance Period (December 1, 2024 to November 30, 2025) was approximately 8.87%*.

Further, under the methodology for determining the Distributable Earnings ROAE Bonus, Distributable Earnings ROAE for the 2025 Performance Period was approximately 8.42%*.

Under the methodology for determining the Relative DE ROAE Bonus, MFA ranked twelfth (12th), or sixty-second and seven-one hundredths (62.07) percentile, relative to the 29 companies (out of the 32 in total) in the Relative DE ROAE Peer Group that reported distributable earnings for the Relative DE ROAE Performance Period.

The amount of each of the Adjusted GAAP ROAE Bonus, Distributable Earnings ROAE Bonus and Relative DE ROAE Bonus for each of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn was determined by applying the Adjusted GAAP ROAE of 8.87%*, the Distributable Earnings ROAE of 8.42%* and the Relative DE ROAE percentile to the respective methodology established by the Compensation Committee

for each component of the Formulaic Bonus, with the result that each executive earned (i) an Adjusted GAAP ROAE Bonus equal to approximately 88.2% of his respective target for this component of the Formulaic Bonus, (ii) a Distributable Earnings ROAE Bonus equal to approximately 78.0% of his respective target for this component of the Formulaic Bonus and (iii) a Relative DE ROAE Bonus equal to 140.2% of his respective target for this component of the Formulaic Bonus.

Adjusted GAAP Earnings, Adjusted GAAP ROAE, Distributable Earnings and Distributable Earnings ROAE are non-GAAP financial measures. See Appendix B and Appendix C for a reconciliation of each such measure to its comparable GAAP measure for the 2025 Performance Period.

The target amount of each component of the Formulaic Bonus, the percentage of the target amount earned, the actual amount of each component earned and the total amount of the 2025 Formulaic Bonus earned by Messrs. Knutson and Wulfsohn are set forth in the table below:

IRM Bonus. The actual amount of the IRM Bonus paid to each of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn was determined by the Compensation Committee in its discretion based upon its review of each executive’s individual performance and overall company performance. In considering these factors, the Compensation Committee did not assign specific weightings to each, but instead considered them together as part of a comprehensive review.

The target amount of this component of annual bonus, the percentage of that target amount earned and the total amount of the 2025 IRM Bonus earned by Messrs. Knutson and Wulfsohn is set forth in the following table:

In determining the amount of Mr. Knutson’s and Mr. Wulfsohn’s respective IRM Bonus and the Compensation Committee’s decision to pay out such bonuses at the levels indicated in the table above, the Compensation Committee recognized the leadership of each executive in steering MFA through the operating and financial environment that defined the 2025 Performance Period. In particular, the Compensation Committee recognized Mr. Knutson’s and Mr. Wulfsohn’s efforts in managing the Company’s investment portfolio, their leadership in implementing various strategic initiatives, including their successful efforts to deploy additional capital into MFA’s target investment assets, while at the same time managing and maintaining a healthy level of liquidity throughout the year to meet margin calls and other obligations, their actions to meaningfully reduce the Company’s expense base relative to 2024 and their successful efforts in continuing to execute securitization transactions (thereby furthering the Company’s strategy of emphasizing longer term, non-mark-to-market, non-recourse funding of its investment assets). The Compensation Committee also recognized Mr. Knutson’s and Mr. Wulfsohn’s success in maintaining and growing the Company’s relationships with MFA’s key stakeholders throughout the year, including its stockholders, its most important lending counterparties and investors in offerings of mortgage-backed securities sponsored by the Company. In addition, the Compensation Committee recognized each executive’s contribution to promoting the unity and focus of MFA’s work force in a challenging operating environment and supporting and enhancing MFA’s workplace culture, including increasing engagement with our employees. Further, the Compensation Committee

recognized the key role that Mr. Knutson played in succession planning both at the corporate level, as well as at the Company’s Lima One Capital subsidiary and the implementation of such plans during the year. With regard to Mr. Wulfsohn, the Compensation Committee also recognized the increased responsibilities undertaken by him in his first full year as President of MFA (in addition to his continuing role as Chief Investment Officer of MFA), including his key role in the identification, selection, purchase and financing of approximately $4.8 billion of new investment assets during the year, his leadership of the team working to resolve the Company’s portfolio of non-performing loans and his oversight of Lima One, including his leadership in guiding Lima One’s operational management in the implementation of various enhancements and improvements in Lima One’s sales, underwriting and loan servicing organizations.

Mr. Roper, Ms. Samuels and Mr. Schwartz. Each of Mr. Roper, Ms. Samuels and Mr. Schwartz is eligible to receive an annual performance bonus in such amount as approved by the Compensation Committee after receiving the input of our CEO. Annual incentive compensation for these executives is based upon subjective assessments and evaluation of MFA’s annual performance and each executive’s individual performance. To guide the Compensation Committee in determining the levels of Mr. Roper’s, Ms. Samuels’ and Mr. Schwartz’s respective bonus for the 2025 Performance Period, it used as a framework a methodology that was similar to the methodology that it used to determine the annual bonus amount for Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn. In this regard, the Compensation Committee, with the input of Mr. Knutson, assumed a hypothetical “target” overall bonus of $700,000 for Mr. Roper, $475,000 for Ms. Samuels and $600,000 for Mr. Schwartz of $600,000. The Compensation Committee then employed an illustrative scenario in which 50% of each executive’s hypothetical target would be based on the three components of the Formulaic Bonus and 50% would be tied to an assessment of the executive’s individual performance and overall company performance. As this approach was a framework for its decision making, the Compensation Committee then used its judgment and discretion to adjust the outcome to arrive at the actual amount of each executive’s bonus. The Compensation Committee believes that using a discretionary (rather than largely formulaic) approach for the determination of Mr. Roper’s, Ms. Samuels’ and Mr. Schwartz’s bonus is appropriate in light of their not having ultimate responsibility for the Company’s investment decisions or management of its investment portfolio. Nonetheless, the Compensation Committee believes that, reflective of their positions as among the most senior executives of the Company, it is appropriate that their bonuses be informed by and aligned with not only their individual performance, but also with the financial performance of the Company. In this regard, in determining Mr. Roper’s, Ms. Samuels’ and Mr. Schwartz’s bonus, the Compensation Committee referred to the Formulaic Bonus structure used in the determination of Mr. Knutson’s and Mr. Wulfsohn’s annual bonuses.

After receiving the input of Mr. Knutson, the Compensation Committee approved an annual incentive bonus to Mr. Roper of $896,000 for the 2025 Performance Period, all of which was paid in cash. In determining Mr. Roper’s bonus, the Compensation Committee recognized, among other things, Mr. Roper’s integral role in connection with the Company’s strategic initiatives, including the effort to decrease the Company’s general and administrative expenses, the various financing and other transactions undertaken by the Company and his leadership in directing the activities performed by and increasing the efficiency and productivity of our finance and accounting staff in support of our business activities and financial reporting.

Further, after receiving the input of Mr. Knutson, the Compensation Committee approved an annual incentive bonus to Ms. Samuels of $565,000 for the 2025 Performance Period, all of which was paid in cash. In determining Ms. Samuels’ bonus, the Compensation Committee noted, among other matters, Ms. Samuels’ key role in the onboarding and financing of mortgage loans acquired by the Company for its investment portfolio, oversight and asset management of the loan portfolio and other loan-related operations. The Compensation Committee also recognized Ms. Samuels’ role in providing advice and support to the sales, underwriting and servicing functions of MFA’s Lima One Capital subsidiary.

In addition, after receiving the input of Mr. Knutson, the Compensation Committee approved an annual incentive bonus for Mr. Schwartz of $648,000, all of which was paid in cash. In determining Mr. Schwartz’s bonus, the Compensation Committee noted his integral role in the various financing and other transactions undertaken by the Company during 2025, his leadership and advice in connection with governance and disclosure matters involving the Company and his leadership in directing the activities performed by our legal department in support of our business activities.

Mr. Knutson was granted RSUs, consisting of TRSUs with a grant date value of approximately $1,632,000 and a “target” number of PRSUs with a grant date value of approximately $2,448,000 in January 2025. In addition, in order to further align the interests of the other Named Executive Officers and foster their retention (and, in the case of Mr. Wulfsohn, in accordance with his employment agreement), the Compensation Committee also made awards of TRSUs and PRSUs to Mr. Wulfsohn, Mr. Roper, Ms. Samuels and Mr. Schwartz in January 2025. For each Named Executive Officer, with respect to the target number of PRSUs, one-half of such target amount is comprised of Absolute TSR PRSUs and one-half is comprised of Relative TSR PRSUs.

In choosing the companies for the Relative TSR PRSUs against whose TSR the Company’s TSR will be measured over the course of the three-year performance period, the Compensation Committee selected the residential and commercial mortgage REITs and other mortgage finance firms the common stock of which was held by the iShares Mortgage Real Estate ETF (Symbol: REM) as of December 31, 2024. A list of these companies can be found on Appendix A to this Proxy Statement. We note that the companies selected by the Compensation Committee for the purposes of the Relative TSR PRSUs (which are the same companies that were used to determine the Relative DE ROAE Bonus paid to each of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn for 2025) are not the same as the companies identified on page 37 of this Proxy Statement because TSR can be determined without regard to the availability of compensation information, which the Company’s externally-managed peers do not report and because the operations of the companies in the iShares Mortgage Real Estate ETF include mortgage finance activities that are not limited principally to residential mortgage finance. In addition, we note that companies that, during the

three-year performance period, cease to be publicly traded companies will be removed from the group against which the Company’s TSR is ultimately evaluated at the end of the performance period.

PRSUs that do not vest at the end of the performance period will be forfeited. Upon vesting, the executive will receive one share of the Company’s Common Stock for each PRSU that vests, provided that the fair market value of the shares of Common Stock delivered upon settlement may not exceed 400% of the grant date value of the PRSUs granted in respect of the completed performance period. Any PRSUs that vest are subject an additional one year deferral prior to settlement, subject to accelerated payout under certain circumstances.

Dividend equivalents will not be paid on a current basis in respect of the PRSUs during the performance period. Rather, dividend equivalents will accrue with respect to the PRSUs during the performance period, and to the extent that the underlying PRSUs vest, an amount equal to the accrued dividend equivalents related to the vested PRSUs will be paid to the executive in the form of additional shares of Common Stock based on the closing price of the Common Stock on the vesting date.

The number and grant date fair value of TRSUs and PRSUs comprising the 2025 long-term equity-based awards granted to each of the Named Executive Officers are set forth in the table below:

Other Elements of Compensation. The following briefly summarizes the other elements of compensation that we provide to our Named Executive Officers beyond salary, annual incentives and long-term equity awards.

Deferred Compensation and Retirement Benefits. In December 2002, the Board adopted the Senior Officers Plan, which gives executive officers the ability to elect to defer up to 100% of their annual cash incentive compensation. Amounts deferred under this plan are subject to a five-year deferral period and can be paid in a lump sum or in installment payments at the termination of the deferral period. Amounts deferred under the plan are deemed to be converted into hypothetical “stock units” of MFA, which do not represent our capital stock, but rather the right to receive a cash payment equal to the fair market value of an equivalent number of shares of Common Stock. Deferred amounts (and the resultant hypothetical stock units), together with any cash dividend equivalents credited to outstanding stock units, increase or decrease in value as would an equivalent number of shares of Common Stock and are settled in cash at the termination of the deferral period, based on the value of the stock units at that time. Prior to the time that the deferred accounts are settled, participants are unsecured creditors of MFA.

The Named Executive Officers are also eligible to participate in our tax qualified retirement savings plan (the “401(k) Plan”) under which all full-time employees, subject to certain restrictions, are able to contribute compensation up to the limit prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service on a before tax basis. We match 100% of the first 3% of eligible compensation deferred by our employees and 50% of the next 2%, subject to a maximum ($14,000 for 2025) as provided by Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). We have elected to operate this plan under applicable safe harbor provisions of the Code, whereby, among other things, we must make contributions for all participating employees, and all matches contributed by us vest immediately.

No Perquisites or Other Benefits. The Compensation Committee provides no perquisites or other benefits to the Named Executive Officers (other than those provided to all employees more generally). We do not provide a perquisite allowance to the Named Executive Officers, nor do we reimburse the Named Executive Officers for automobiles, clubs, financial planning, tax preparation, personal or home security or items of a similar nature. The Compensation Committee periodically reviews the appropriateness of perquisites in light of market practices, an individual executive’s particular facts and circumstances and within the context of the total compensation program. No actions were taken during 2025 regarding perquisites.

The Named Executive Officers are eligible to participate in our employee health and welfare benefit programs that are generally available to all employees. Further, in accordance with the Code of Conduct, we do not make any loans to, or guarantee any personal loans of, the Named Executive Officers.

Use of Employment Agreements. We have historically used written employment agreements with certain of our executive officers to evidence our mutual understanding regarding the key terms of employment, including the employment term, level of base salary, other elements of compensation, reasons for termination of employment before the end of the term, severance payments and post-employment covenants. At present, we have written employment agreements with two executive officers (Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn). The Compensation Committee believes that the use of employment agreements in certain instances helps the Company to retain key personnel responsible for the execution of MFA’s strategies and the management of its operations and provides certain protections for MFA in the form of covenants restricting employment with a competitor and solicitation of our employees. Although the Compensation Committee has used written employment agreements to provide the Company and certain of its executives with certainty regarding the terms of employment and to encourage stability of key management, the Compensation Committee periodically discusses their merit in achieving these objectives and may, in its discretion, determine not to use written employment agreements in the future for certain or all of our employees. For additional details regarding the employment agreements of Mr. Knutson and Mr. Wulfsohn, including the circumstances in which severance is payable and the amount of such severance benefits, see “Employment Contracts” on pages 61 to 64 and “Potential Payments upon Termination of Employment or Change in Control” on pages 65 to 69 of this Proxy Statement.

The Compensation Committee believes that the written employment agreements have been responsibly structured, including as follows:

Clawback Policy. The Company’s clawback policy provides for the recovery of certain performance-based compensation in the event of an accounting restatement (as such term is defined in the clawback policy) by the Company due to material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement under U.S. federal securities laws, including any required accounting restatement to correct an error in previously issued financial statements (i) that is material to the previously issued financial statements or (ii) that would result in a material misstatement if the error were corrected in the current period or left uncorrected in the current period. Under this policy, the Compensation Committee must seek to recover the portion of performance-based compensation paid to our current or former executive officers that would not have been earned had the Company’s restated financial statements been used in the determination of the amount of performance-based compensation originally awarded. This policy includes a three-year look back period. A copy of the clawback policy was filed as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, which was filed with the SEC on February 22, 2024.

We also have included in Messrs. Knutson’s and Mr. Wulfsohn’s respective employment agreements, as well as in the TRSU and PRSU award agreements relating to awards made to Mr. Roper, Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Samuels, provisions requiring the forfeiture of unvested awards and permitting the recoupment of the after-tax value of vested awards in the event that the employee breaches certain covenants regarding, among other matters, confidentiality of Company information and solicitation of employees for a period of time after termination of employment.

Stock Retention and Ownership Requirements. Equity awards received by certain of our Named Executive Officers are subject to a stock retention and ownership policy intended to further encourage significant long-term share ownership. Messrs. Knutson and Wulfsohn are not permitted to sell or otherwise transfer shares received from equity awards granted pursuant to their employment agreements during the executive’s employment or for a period of six months following the termination of the executive’s employment, unless the value of the executive’s stock holdings (inclusive of shares of common stock and restricted stock units) in MFA exceeds four times the executive’s annual base salary.

Anti-Hedging Policy; No Pledging of Securities. Our Insider Trading Policy prohibits our employees, including our executive officers, from engaging in short sales or in transactions in puts, calls or other derivative securities in respect of MFA’s equity and debt securities, whether on an exchange or in any other organized market. In addition, we prohibit our employees from engaging in other forms of hedging transactions involving MFA’s equity and debt securities, such as zero cost collars and forward sale contracts. We also prohibit our employees from holding MFA equity or debt securities in a margin account or pledging MFA securities as collateral for a loan. A copy of our Insider Trading Policy was filed as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, which was filed with the SEC on February 20, 2025.

Advice from Independent Compensation Consultant. The Compensation Committee has historically retained an independent compensation consultant to assist it in reviewing the competitiveness of our executive compensation program, considering the overall design of the compensation program and providing compensation advice independent of company management. In the fall of 2020 (and annually since then), the Compensation Committee directly retained FW Cook, a nationally recognized compensation consulting firm, in this role. One or more representatives from FW Cook meet, from time to time, with the Compensation Committee and provide assistance to the Compensation Committee with respect to various matters, including: (i) a benchmarking review of peer company executive compensation; (ii) the awards of annual incentive compensation; (iii) evaluating the elements and design of various aspects of our compensation program in light of current executive compensation practices for companies in our industry and public companies more generally; (iv) assisting in the development of an appropriate peer group; and (v) assisting in the design and review of employment agreements and other employment arrangements for certain of our senior executives.

Under the terms of its engagement, FW Cook does not provide any other services to us, except as may be pre-approved by the Chair of the Compensation Committee.

Compensation Committee Conflicts of Interest Analysis. The Compensation Committee assessed the independence of FW Cook pursuant to the factors set forth in its charter and Rule 10C-1(b)(4) under the Exchange Act. Based on this assessment, the Compensation Committee concluded that FW Cook’s work for the Board did not raise any conflicts of interest.

Use of Tally Sheets. The Compensation Committee periodically examines the components of our compensation programs offered to the Named Executive Officers, including, among other things, base salary, annual incentives, equity and long-term compensation, dividend and dividend equivalent payments, the dollar value (and the cost to us) of any perquisites and other personal benefits, the

earnings and accumulated payout obligations under the Senior Officers Plan (as may be applicable) and the actual projected payout obligations under several potential severance and change in control scenarios. In connection with such review, a compensation tally sheet setting forth these components of our executive compensation program typically is prepared with respect to our most senior executives and reviewed by the Compensation Committee for this purpose.

Role of Executive Officers in Compensation Decisions. The Compensation Committee, which is comprised entirely of independent directors, makes recommendations to the independent directors of the Board on all compensation decisions relating to our CEO, and it determines and approves all compensation decisions related to our other Named Executive Officers. When making compensation recommendations for Named Executive Officers other than the CEO, the Compensation Committee will typically seek and consider the advice and counsel of the CEO in light of his direct day-to-day working relationship with these senior executives. Taking this feedback into consideration, the Compensation Committee engages in discussions and makes final determinations related to compensation paid to the Named Executive Officers. All decisions regarding the compensation of our CEO are ratified and confirmed independently by the independent directors of the Board.

Deductibility of Executive Compensation. Section 162(m) of the Code generally provides that, for federal tax purposes, a public company may not deduct compensation in excess of $1 million paid in any fiscal year to any of certain executive officers (who are referred to as “covered employees”). The Company’s “covered employees” are our chief executive officer, chief financial officer and our three other most highly compensated executives. An individual who is a “covered employee” in any year after 2016 will remain a “covered employee” under Section 162(m) regardless of the individual’s officer status or level of compensation.

The Compensation Committee considers the Section 162(m) deduction limit when it assesses the Company’s executive compensation practices. However, in order to maintain flexibility in compensating the Company’s executive officers in a manner designed to promote our corporate goals, including retaining and providing incentives to the executive officers, the Compensation Committee has not adopted a policy that all compensation must be deductible and may, as it has in prior years (as well as in 2024), authorize payments to executives that may not be fully deductible if the Compensation Committee believes that such payments are in the Company’s interests.

The Compensation Committee monitors the risks and rewards associated with our compensation programs and considers, in establishing our compensation programs, whether they encourage unnecessary or excessive risk taking.

The Compensation Committee designs our compensation programs with features that are intended to mitigate risk without diminishing the incentive nature of the compensation. We believe our compensation programs encourage and reward prudent business judgment and appropriate risk taking over the long term.