the effects of governmental regulation, including insurance laws, securities laws, tax laws, legal precedents and accounting rules;
Included in our consolidated net income for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $281 million of income before income taxes related to consolidated VIEs compared with a loss of $120 million for 2009. For the year ended December 31, 2010, revenues and expenses of consolidated VIEs, after the elimination of intercompany revenues and expenses, were $364 million and $83 million, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2009, revenues and expenses of consolidated VIEs, after the elimination of intercompany revenues and expenses, were a loss $19 million and $101 million, respectively. The increase in revenues is largely attributable to gains on financial instruments recorded at fair value, as well as a reduction in other-than-temporary impairments of VIE assets.
Our “Net unearned premium revenue” adjustment to book value per share consists of unearned premium revenue net of prepaid reinsurance premiums recorded on our consolidated balance sheet as required by accounting principles for financial guarantee insurance contracts. Unearned premium revenue includes amounts not yet collected and, therefore, recorded in premiums receivable on our consolidated balance sheet. Our “Net unearned premium revenue” adjustment to book value per share also includes the unamortized portion of installment premiums collected on insured derivative contracts and the unamortized portion of insurance-related deferred fee revenue. Our “Present value of insured derivative installment revenue” adjustment to book value per share consists of the present value of premiums not yet collected from insured derivative contracts, which are not recorded on our balance sheet in accordance with accounting principles for financial guarantee insurance contracts but which are contractually due to the Company.
Refer to “Note 24: Commitments and Contingencies” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for information about legal actions commenced by MBIA with respect to certain CDS contracts, and “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Form 10-K for information on legislative changes that could require collateral posting by MBIA Corp. notwithstanding the contract terms. The outcome of such legal actions may affect the amount of realized losses ultimately incurred by the Company, although the damages potentially awarded to the Company upon prevailing in the litigation are not directly considered in determining the impairment of the insured credit
During the year ended December 31, 2010, we paid approximately $1.0 billion, net of reinsurance and collections, on insured RMBS transactions after eliminating $418 million of net payments made to consolidated VIEs. As of December 31, 2010, we paid a cumulative total of $3.4 billion, net of reinsurance and collections and excluding $1.8 billion of net payments made to consolidated VIEs, on these transactions and had case basis reserves of $708 million. The case basis reserves represent the present value of the difference between cash payments we expect to make on the insured transactions and the cash receipts we expect from the performing mortgages in the securitizations. As payments are made, a portion of those expected future receipts is recorded within “Insurance loss recoverable” in our consolidated balance sheet. The payments that we make largely go to reduce the principal balances of the securitizations.
sellers/servicers have contractual obligations to cure, repurchase or replace. In addition, recoveries and damages from legal actions that MBIA Corp. has filed against certain of the sellers/servicers could result in recoveries that are substantially higher than the amount currently recognized as recoveries. Refer to “Note 6: Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Reserves” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information about assumptions used to estimate recoveries on our RMBS exposure.
MBIA Corp.’s $105.6 billion CDO portfolio represented 55% of its total insured gross par outstanding of $190.2 billion as of December 31, 2010. The distribution of the Company’s insured CDO and related instruments portfolio by collateral type is presented in the following table:
The following table presents the collateral as a percentage of the performing pool balances as of December 31, 2010 for all MBIA Corp.-insured CRE CDO transactions:
Fees of $83 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 are due to general support services provided to business units within the Company on a fee-for-service basis.
The Company’s income taxes and the related effective tax rates for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 are as follows:
Liquidity risk arises in our structured finance and international insurance segment when claims on insured exposures result in payment obligations, when operating cash inflows fall due to depressed new business writings, when investment income decreases, when unanticipated expenses arise, or when invested assets experience credit defaults or significant declines in fair value.
MBIA minimizes its exposure to interest rate risk, foreign exchange risk and credit spread movement through active portfolio management to ensure a proper mix of the types of securities held and to stagger the maturities of its fixed-income securities. In addition, the Company enters into various swap agreements that hedge the risk of loss due to interest rate and foreign currency volatility.
Investment agreements and MTNs are recorded on the balance sheet at the time such agreements are executed. The liabilities for investment agreements and MTNs are carried at their face value, adjusted for any premiums or discounts, plus accrued interest. Interest expense is accrued at the contractual interest rate. Premiums and discounts related to investment agreements and MTNs are amortized on a constant yield basis as an adjustment to interest expense.
MBIA Inc. and its eligible U.S. subsidiaries file a consolidated Federal income tax return. The U.S. income taxes, which represent a majority of the taxes paid by the Company, are allocated based on the provisions of the
In establishing case basis loss reserves, the Company calculates the present value of probability-weighted estimated loss payments, net of estimated recoveries, using a discount rate equal to the risk-free rate applicable to the currency and the weighted average remaining life of the insurance contract as required by accounting principles for financial guarantee contracts. Yields on U.S. Treasury offerings are used to discount loss reserves denominated in U.S. dollars, which represent the majority of the loss reserves. Similarly, yields on foreign government offerings are used to discount loss reserves denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. If the Company were to apply different discount rates, its case basis reserves may have been higher or lower than those established as of December 31, 2010. For example, a higher discount rate applied to expected future payments would have decreased the amount of a case basis reserve established by the Company and a lower rate would have increased the amount of a reserve established by the Company. Similarly, a higher discount rate applied to potential future recoveries would have decreased the amount of a loss recoverable established by the Company and a lower rate would have increased the amount of a loss recoverable established by the Company.
(1)- An “issue” represents the aggregate of financial guarantee policies that share the same revenue source for purposes of making debt service payments.
The following table provides the components of the Company’s insurance loss reserves and recoverables for insured obligations within MBIA’s classified list as reported on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2010 and 2009. The loss reserves (claim liability) and insurance claim loss recoverable included in the following table represent the present value of the probability-weighted future claim payments and recoveries reported in the preceding tables.
Foreign governments-Foreign government obligations are generally valued based on quoted market prices in active markets, and are categorized in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. When quoted market prices are not available, fair value is determined using a valuation model based on observable inputs including interest rate yield curves, cross-currency basis index spreads, and country credit spreads for structures similar to the financial instrument in terms of issuer, maturity and seniority. These financial instruments are generally categorized in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Bonds that contain significant inputs that are not observable are categorized as Level 3.
Benchmark from most relevant market source when corporate spreads are not directly relevant.
The carrying value of MBIA’s gross financial guarantees consists of unearned premium revenue and loss and LAE reserves as reported on MBIA’s consolidated balance sheets.
The following table presents the distribution by contractual maturity of available-for-sale fixed-maturity investments at amortized cost and fair value as of December 31, 2010. Contractual maturity may differ from expected maturity as borrowers may have the right to call or prepay obligations.
The Company’s derivative exposure within its U.S. public finance insurance operations primarily consists of insured interest rate and inflation-linked swaps related to insured U.S. public finance debt issues. These derivatives do not qualify for the financial guarantee scope exception. The Company has also purchased certain investments containing embedded derivatives. All derivatives are recorded at fair value on the Company’s balance sheet with the changes in fair value recorded in current earnings within “Unrealized gains (losses) on insured derivatives.”
MBIA may hold recourse provisions with third parties in derivative transactions through both reinsurance and subrogation rights. MBIA’s reinsurance arrangements provide that should MBIA pay a claim under a guarantee of a derivative contract, then MBIA could collect amounts from any reinsurers that have reinsured the guarantee on either a proportional or non-proportional basis, depending upon the underlying reinsurance agreement. MBIA may also have recourse through subrogation rights whereby if MBIA makes a claim payment, it is entitled to any rights of the insured counterparty, including the right to any assets held as collateral.
As of December 31, 2009, the total fair value of the Company’s derivative assets, before counterparty netting, was $987 million and the total fair value of the Company’s derivative liabilities, before counterparty netting and cash collateral posted, was $4.9 billion. The following table presents the total fair value of the Company’s derivative assets and liabilities by instrument and balance sheet location, before counterparty netting, as of December 31, 2009:
The Company manages counterparty credit risk on an individual counterparty basis through master netting agreements covering derivative transactions in the asset/liability product segment. These agreements allow the Company to contractually net amounts due from a counterparty with those amounts due to such counterparty when certain triggering events occur. The Company only executes swaps under master netting agreements, which typically contain mutual credit downgrade provisions that generally provide the ability to require assignment or termination in the event either MBIA or the counterparty is downgraded below a specified credit rating.
As of December 31, 2009, the Company’s short-term debt consisted of 4.5% Swiss franc notes which matured in June 2010, and were originally issued in December 2000.
Long-term debt consists of borrowings under liquidity facilities drawn by Triple-A-One Funding, LLC (“Triple-A One”), an MBIA-administered multi-seller conduit consolidated in the Company’s conduit segment. Under private placement offerings, Triple-A One issued commercial paper to fund the purchase of assets from structured finance clients with maturities of up to 270 days. Assets purchased by Triple-A One are insured by MBIA Corp. Historically, Triple-A One maintained backstop liquidity facilities for each transaction, covering 100% of the face amount of commercial paper outstanding. These liquidity facilities were designed to allow Triple-A One to repay investors in the event of a market disruption in which Triple-A One would be unable to issue new commercial paper to replace maturing commercial paper. The financial guarantee policies issued by MBIA to insure the assets of Triple-A One cannot be accelerated to repay maturing commercial paper or borrowings under liquidity facilities and only guarantee ultimate payments over time relating to the assets. As a result of the deteriorating market environment, Triple-A One fully drew on its liquidity facilities in September 2008 and ceased issuing commercial paper. All commercial paper holders have been repaid in full and borrowings under liquidity facilities, which totaled $360 million and $433 million as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, will be repaid as the assets purchased by Triple-A One mature. The Company expects that the facilities will be fully repaid by 2037. The interest rate applicable to borrowings as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 was one-month LIBOR plus 0.75%. Given the fully drawn position of its liquidity facilities and no expectation of issuing commercial paper in the foreseeable future, Triple-A One ratings were withdrawn by Moody’s and S&P at the request of Triple-A One.
The Company’s U.S. public finance insurance segment is conducted through National. The financial guarantees issued by National provide unconditional and irrevocable guarantees of the payment of principal of, and interest or other amounts owing on, U.S. public finance insured obligations when due. The obligations are generally not subject to acceleration, except that National may have the right, at its discretion, to accelerate insured obligations upon default or otherwise. National issues financial guarantees for municipal bonds and bonds backed by publicly or privately funded public-purpose projects.
As of December 31, 2010, insurance in force, which represents principal and interest or other amounts owing on insured obligations, had an expected maturity range of 1 to 47 years. The distribution of MBIA Corp.’s and National’s combined insurance in force by geographic location, excluding $4.9 billion and $7.3 billion relating to transactions guaranteed by MBIA Corp. on behalf of various investment management services affiliated companies as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, is presented in the following table:
MBIA, through its subsidiaries, is responsible for providing investment advisory and certain related administrative services to the MBIA Capital/Claymore Managed Duration Investment Grade Municipal Fund (the “Fund”). MBIA earned investment management, accounting, administration and service fees related to the Fund, net of underwriting fees paid to a third party, of $0.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 and are included in “Fees and Reimbursements” in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations.
On March 12, 2010, the City of Phoenix, Arizona filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against MBIA Corp., Ambac Assurance Corp. and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company relating to insurance premiums charged on municipal bonds issued by the City of Phoenix between 2004 and 2007. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges pricing discrimination under Arizona insurance law and unjust enrichment. MBIA Inc. filed its answer on May 28, 2010.
employees (collectively for this paragraph, “MBIA”), as well as various financial institutions and law firms. Tri-City subsequently filed three amended complaints. The Third Amendment Complaint, filed on January 26, 2011, purports to state 10 causes of against MBIA for, among other things, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of the California False Claims Act arising from Tri-City Healthcare District’s investment in auction rate securities. On October 22, 2010, MBIA filed its demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint. At the January 6, 2011 demurrer hearing, the Court dismissed portions of the complaint with leave to amend. On February 17, 2011, MBIA filed its demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint.
on a total of $5.7 billion in CDOs arranged and marketed by Merrill Lynch. The complaint also seeks rescission of the CDS contracts. On April 9, 2010, Justice Bernard Fried denied in part and granted in part Merrill Lynch’s motion to dismiss. On April 13, 2010, MBIA Corp. filed a notice of appeal with respect to the dismissal of its claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Merrill Lynch filed its cross notice of appeal regarding the breach of contract claim that survived the motion to dismiss. On February 1, 2011, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the lower court’s dismissal and reversed the lower court’s ruling relating to MBIA Corp.’s breach of contract claim. MBIA Corp. intends to appeal the Appellate Division’s ruling to the New York Court of Appeals, and has filed papers with the lower court seeking permission to file an amended complaint.
On January 21, 2010, MBIA Corp. and LaCrosse commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County, against Royal Bank of Canada and RBC Capital Markets Corporation (“RBC”) relating to three CDS transactions and related insurance policies referencing Logan CDO I, Ltd., Logan CDO II, Ltd. and Logan CDO III, Ltd. (the “Logan CDOs”). The complaint alleged RBC fraudulently or negligently induced MBIA to insure the Logan CDOs, claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, and challenges RBC’s failure to issue credit event and related notifications in accordance with contractual obligations for the Logan CDOs. A settlement of this matter was reached between the parties and on January 4, 2011, a stipulation of voluntary discontinuance with prejudice was filed. The settlement also included commutation of certain CDS contracts between RBC and LaCrosse.
On October 14, 2008, June 17, 2009 and August 25, 2009, MBIA Corp. submitted proofs of claim to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) with respect to the resolution of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. for both pre- and post-receivership amounts owed to MBIA Corp. as a result of IndyMac’s contractual breaches and fraud in connection with financial guarantee insurance issued by MBIA Corp. on securitizations of HELOCs. The proofs of claim were subsequently denied by the FDIC. MBIA Corp. has appealed the FDIC’s denial of its proofs of claim via a complaint, filed on May 29, 2009, against IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. and the FDIC, as receiver, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and alleges that IndyMac fraudulently induced MBIA Corp. to provide financial guarantee insurance on securitizations of HELOCs by breaching contractual representations and warranties as well as negligently and fraudulently misrepresenting the nature of the loans in the securitization pools and IndyMac’s adherence to its strict underwriting standards and guidelines. On February 8, 2010, MBIA Corp. filed its amended complaint against the FDIC both in its corporate capacity and as conservator/receiver of IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. for breach of its contractual obligations as servicer and seller for the IndyMac transactions at issue and for unlawful disposition of IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B.’s assets in connection with the FDIC’s resolution of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. On May 21, 2010, the FDIC filed separate motions to dismiss both in its capacity as a corporate entity and as receiver/conservator. MBIA Corp. filed its opposition to the FDIC’s motions to dismiss on July 1, 2010. The FDIC’s replies were filed on July 30, 2010.
On May 13, 2009, a complaint was filed in the New York State Supreme Court against the Company and its subsidiaries, MBIA Corp. and National, entitled ABN AMRO Bank N.V. et al. v. MBIA Inc. et al. The plaintiffs, a group of domestic and international financial institutions, purport to be acting as holders of insurance policies issued by MBIA Corp. directly or indirectly guaranteeing the repayment of structured finance products. The complaint alleges that certain of the terms of the transactions entered into by the Company and its subsidiaries, which were approved by the NYSID, constituted fraudulent conveyances and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under New York law. The complaint seeks a judgment (a) ordering the defendants to unwind the Transactions, (b) declaring that the Transactions constituted a fraudulent conveyance, (c) declaring