The GSEs have different loan purchase programs that allow different levels of mortgage insurance coverage. Under the “charter coverage” program, on certain loans lenders may choose a mortgage insurance coverage percentage that is less than the GSEs’ “standard coverage” and only the minimum required by the GSEs’ charters, with the GSEs paying a lower price for such loans. In 2013 and 2014, nearly all of our volume was on loans with GSE standard or higher coverage. We charge higher premium rates for higher coverage percentages. To the extent lenders selling loans to the GSEs in the future choose lower coverage for loans that we insure, our revenues would be reduced and we could experience other adverse effects.
· Premiums ceded under reinsurance agreements. See Note 11 - “Reinsurance” to our consolidated statements in Item 8 for a discussion of our quota share agreement executed in 2013, under which premiums are ceded net of a profit commission.
· The product mix of the in force book, with loans having higher risk characteristics generally resulting in higher delinquencies and claims.
As market conditions change, we change the types of loans that we insure as well as the underwriting requirements and terms under which we insure them. Price competition has been present in the market for some time: in the third quarter of 2014, we reduced many of our standard lender-paid single premium rates to match competition; and in the fourth quarter of 2013, we reduced all of our standard borrower-paid monthly premium rates and most of our standard single premium rates to match competition. Currently, we are seeing price competition in the form of lender-paid single premium programs customized for individual lenders with rates materially lower than those on the standard rate card. During most of 2013, when almost all of our single premium rates were above those most commonly used in the market, single premium policies were approximately 10% of our total new insurance written; they were approximately 15% in 2014 and we expect a higher percentage in 2015, primarily as a result of our selectively matching reduced customized rates. The premium from a single premium policy is collected upfront and generally earned over the estimated life of the policy. In contrast, premiums from a monthly premium policy are received and earned each month over the life of the policy. Depending on the actual life of a single premium policy and its premium rate relative to that of a monthly premium policy, a single premium policy may generate more or less premium than a monthly premium policy over its life. Currently, we expect to receive less lifetime premium from a new lender-paid single premium policy than we would from a new borrower-paid monthly premium policy. As a result of the recent increase in the percentage of our new insurance written from lender-paid single premium policies, our weighted average premium rate on new insurance written has decreased from 2013 to 2014. As the percentage of our new business represented by lender-paid single premium policies continues to grow, all other things equal, our weighted average premium rates on new insurance written in the future will decrease. If we reduce or discount prices on any premium plan in response to future price competition, it may further decrease our weighted average premium rates. We monitor the competitive landscape and will make adjustments to our pricing and underwriting guidelines as warranted. We also make exceptions to our underwriting requirements on a loan-by-loan basis and for certain customer programs. Together, the number of loans for which exceptions were made accounted for fewer than 2% of the loans we insured in 2013 and 2014.
Net investment income in 2013 was lower when compared to 2012. The decrease was driven by a reduction in the average invested assets resulting from the payment of claims and also due in part to realized gains taken in 2012 and 2011. These realized gains captured income in those prior years that would have otherwise been earned over several years. The realized gains in 2012 and 2011 also drove the investment yield lower. The portfolio’s average pre-tax investment yield was 1.7% at December 31, 2013 and 2012.
Net realized gains for 2012 included $197.7 million in net realized gains on the sale of fixed income investments, slightly offset by $2.3 million in OTTI losses. We elected to realize gains during 2012, by selling certain securities, given the favorable market conditions experienced in 2012.
(1) In this report we classify loans without complete documentation as "reduced documentation" loans regardless of FICO credit score rather than as prime, "A-" or "subprime" loans; in the table above, such loans appear only in the reduced documentation category and they do not appear in any of the other categories.
The loss ratio is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the sum of incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses to net premiums earned. The loss ratio does not reflect any effects due to premium deficiency. The decrease in the loss ratio in 2014 compared to 2013, was due to a decrease in losses incurred, somewhat offset by a decrease in net premiums earned. The underwriting expense ratio is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the underwriting expenses of our combined insurance operations (which excludes the cost of non-insurance operations) to net premiums written. The decrease in the underwriting expense ratio in 2014 compared to 2013, was due to an increase in ceding commissions under our 2013 reinsurance agreement and a decrease in other expenses of our combined insurance operations. The combined ratio is the sum of the loss ratio and the underwriting expense ratio.
The change in cash related to investing activities in 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily due to a decrease in purchases of fixed maturity securities. In 2013, cash used in investment activities included the purchase of additional fixed maturity securities using proceeds from our concurrent common stock and convertible senior note offerings in March 2013 discussed in Note 9 - “Debt” and Note 15 - “Shareholders’ Equity” to our consolidated financial statements.
Interest payments on the debentures were $35.1 million and $53.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
A rollforward of our primary default inventory for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 appears in the table below. The information concerning new notices and cures is compiled from monthly reports received from loan servicers. The level of new notice and cure activity reported in a particular month can be influenced by, among other things, the date on which a servicer generates its report, the number of business days in a month and by transfers of servicing between loan servicers.
A summary of the combined quota share reinsurance agreement for 2014 and 2013 appears below.
During 2014, 2013 and 2012, net unrealized (losses) gains of ($13.5) million, $13.5 million and $101.3 million, respectively, were reclassified to the Consolidated Statement of Operations and included in Realized investment gains.
We review the need to maintain the deferred tax asset valuation allowance on a quarterly basis. We analyze several factors, among which are the severity and frequency of operating losses, our capacity for the carryback or carryforward of any losses, the existence and current level of taxable operating income, the expected occurrence of future income or loss, the expiration dates of the carryforwards, the cyclical nature of our operating results, and available tax planning strategies. Based on our analysis and the current level of cumulative operating losses, we continue to reduce our benefit from income tax through the recognition of a valuation allowance.
On September 10, 2014, we received Notices of Deficiency (commonly referred to as “90 day letters”) covering the 2000-2007 tax years. The Notices of Deficiency reflect taxes and penalties related to the REMIC matters of $197.5 million and at December 31, 2014, there would also be interest related to these matters of approximately $168.4 million. In 2007, we made a payment of $65.2 million to the United States Department of the Treasury which will reduce any amounts we would ultimately owe. The Notices of Deficiency also reflect additional amounts due of $261.4 million, which are primarily associated with the disallowance of the carryback of the 2009 net operating loss to the 2004-2007 tax years. We believe the IRS included the carryback adjustments as a precaution to keep open the statute of limitations on collection of the tax that was refunded when this loss was carried back, and not because the IRS actually intends to disallow the carryback permanently.
When reviewing the loan file associated with a claim, we may determine that we have the right to rescind coverage on the loan. Prior to 2008, rescissions of coverage on loans were not a material portion of our claims resolved during a year. However, beginning in 2008, our rescissions of coverage on loans have materially mitigated our paid losses. In 2009 through 2011, rescissions mitigated our paid losses in the aggregate by approximately $3.0 billion; and in 2012, 2013 and 2014, rescissions mitigated our paid losses by approximately $0.3 billion, $135 million and $97 million, respectively (in each case, the figure includes amounts that would have either resulted in a claim payment or been charged to a deductible under pool policy, and may have been charged to a captive reinsurer). In recent quarters, approximately 5% of claims received in a quarter have been resolved by rescissions, down from the peak of approximately 28% in the first half of 2009.
Consumers continue to bring lawsuits against home mortgage lenders and settlement service providers. Mortgage insurers, including MGIC, have been involved in litigation alleging violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly known as FCRA. MGIC’s settlement of class action litigation against it under RESPA became final in October 2003. MGIC settled the named plaintiffs’ claims in litigation against it under FCRA in December 2004, following denial of class certification in June 2004. Since December 2006, class action litigation has been brought against a number of large lenders alleging that their captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA. Beginning in December 2011, MGIC, together with various mortgage lenders and other mortgage insurers, has been named as a defendant in twelve lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various U.S. District Courts. The complaints in all of the cases allege various causes of action related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the mortgage lenders, including that the lenders’ captive reinsurers received excessive premiums in relation to the risk assumed by those captives, thereby violating RESPA. Seven of those cases had been dismissed prior to February 2015 without any further opportunity to appeal. Of the remaining five cases, three were dismissed with prejudice in February 2015 pursuant to stipulations of dismissal from the plaintiffs, and the remaining two cases are expected to be dismissed with prejudice in connection with plaintiffs' stipulations in such cases. There can be no assurance that we will not be subject to further litigation under RESPA (or FCRA) or that the outcome of any such litigation, including the lawsuits mentioned above, would not have a material adverse effect on us.