Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 10 -Commitments and Contingencies Management Agreement with ACM We are externally managed by ACM pursuant to a management agreement (the “Management Agreement”) see also Note 15, “Related Party Transactions”. The Management Agreement entitles ACM to receive a management fee payable monthly in arrears. Currently, the monthly management fee is 1/12th of the sum of (a) 1.5% of gross equity raised up to $1.0 billion plus (b) 0.75% of gross equity raised in excess of $1.0 billion. The cost of repurchased stock and any dividend representing a return of capital for tax purposes will reduce the amount of gross equity raised used to calculate the monthly management fee. At March 31, 2016 and March 31, 2015, the effective management fee was 1.05%, and 1.03% based on gross equity raised of $2,469,368 and $2,663,917, respectively. The ACM monthly management fee is not calculated based on the performance of our assets. Accordingly, the payment of our monthly management fee may not decline in the event of a decline in our earnings and may cause us to incur losses. We are also responsible for any costs and expenses that ACM incurred solely on behalf of ARMOUR other than the various overhead expenses specified in the terms of the Management Agreement. ACM is further entitled to receive a termination fee from us under certain circumstances. Indemnifications and Litigation We enter into certain contracts that contain a variety of indemnifications, principally with ACM and underwriters, against third party claims for errors and omissions in connection with their services to us. We have not incurred any costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. As a result, the estimated fair value of these agreements, as well as the maximum amount attributable to past events, is not material. Accordingly, we have no liabilities recorded for these agreements at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015. Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the Tender Offer and Merger for JAVELIN (see Note 17 -Subsequent Events for more information about the Tender Offer and Merger). The Tender Offer and Merger are collectively defined herein as the “Transactions.” All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN’s board of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current members of ARMOUR’s board of directors) (the “Individual Defendants”) and Acquisition as defendants. Certain cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional defendants. The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN’s common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of JAVELIN’s stockholders, alleging that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims that the Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders; ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of interest; failed to disclose material information about the Transactions; took steps to avoid competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage by failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirors or alternative transactions; and erected unreasonable barriers to other third-party bidders. The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. On April 25, 2016, the court issued an order consolidating eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No. 24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland cases as interim lead co-counsel. Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual Defendants believes that the claims made in these lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend such claims vigorously; however, there can be no assurance that any of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the Individual Defendants will prevail in its defense of any of these lawsuits to which it is a party. An unfavorable resolution of any such litigation surrounding the Transactions may result in monetary damages being awarded to the plaintiffs and the putative class of former stockholders of JAVELIN and the cost of defending the litigation, even if resolved favorably, could be substantial. Due to the preliminary nature of all nine suits, ARMOUR is not able at this time to estimate their outcome.

Note 10 -Commitments and Contingencies

Management Agreement with ACM

We are externally managed by ACM pursuant to a management agreement (the “Management Agreement”) see also Note 15, “Related Party Transactions”. The Management Agreement entitles ACM to receive a management fee payable monthly in arrears. Currently, the monthly management fee is 1/12th of the sum of (a) 1.5% of gross equity raised up to $1.0 billion plus (b) 0.75% of gross equity raised in excess of $1.0 billion. The cost of repurchased stock and any dividend representing a return of capital for tax purposes will reduce the amount of gross equity raised used to calculate the monthly management fee. At March 31, 2016 and March 31, 2015, the effective management fee was 1.05%, and 1.03% based on gross equity raised of $2,469,368 and $2,663,917, respectively. The ACM monthly management fee is not calculated based on the performance of our assets. Accordingly, the payment of our monthly management fee may not decline in the event of a decline in our earnings and may cause us to incur losses. We are also responsible for any costs and expenses that ACM incurred solely on behalf of ARMOUR other than the various overhead expenses specified in the terms of the Management Agreement. ACM is further entitled to receive a termination fee from us under certain circumstances.

Indemnifications and Litigation

We enter into certain contracts that contain a variety of indemnifications, principally with ACM and underwriters, against third party claims for errors and omissions in connection with their services to us. We have not incurred any costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. As a result, the estimated fair value of these agreements, as well as the maximum amount attributable to past events, is not material. Accordingly, we have no liabilities recorded for these agreements at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015.

Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the Tender Offer and Merger for JAVELIN (see Note 17 -Subsequent Events for more information about the Tender Offer and Merger). The Tender Offer and Merger are collectively defined herein as the “Transactions.” All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN’s board of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current members of ARMOUR’s board of directors) (the “Individual Defendants”) and Acquisition as defendants. Certain cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional defendants. The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN’s common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of JAVELIN’s stockholders, alleging that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims that the Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders; ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of interest; failed to disclose material information about the Transactions; took steps to avoid competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage by failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirors or alternative transactions; and erected unreasonable barriers to other third-party bidders. The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. On April 25, 2016, the court issued an order consolidating eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No. 24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland cases as interim lead co-counsel.

Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual Defendants believes that the claims made in these lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend such claims vigorously; however, there can be no assurance that any of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the Individual Defendants will prevail in its defense of any of these lawsuits to which it is a party. An unfavorable resolution of any such litigation surrounding the Transactions may result in monetary damages being awarded to the plaintiffs and the putative class of former stockholders of JAVELIN and the cost of defending the litigation, even if resolved favorably, could be substantial. Due to the preliminary nature of all nine suits, ARMOUR is not able at this time to estimate their outcome.