Through our subsidiary MGIC, we are the largest private mortgage insurer in the United States, as measured by $172.9 billion of primary insurance in force at December 31, 2011.
Whether private mortgage insurance will remain a significant credit enhancement alternative for low down payment single family mortgages. A definition of “qualified residential mortgages” (“QRM”) that significantly impacts the volume of low down payment mortgages available to be insured or a possible restructuring or change in the charters of the GSEs could significantly affect our business. This challenge is discussed under “Qualified Residential Mortgages” and “GSE Reform” below.
In December 2011, our holding company, MGIC Investment Corporation, contributed $200 million to increase the statutory capital of MGIC. (As of December 31, 2011, there was $487 million of cash and investments at our holding company). At December 31, 2011, MGIC’s risk-to-capital ratio was 20.3 to 1 and its policyholder position exceeded the MPP by $185 million. We currently expect MGIC’s risk-to-capital to exceed 25 to 1 in the second half of 2012. At December 31, 2011, the risk-to-capital ratio of our combined insurance operations (which includes reinsurance affiliates) was 22.2 to 1. A higher risk-to-capital ratio on a combined basis may indicate that, in order for MGIC to continue to utilize reinsurance arrangements with its subsidiaries or subsidiaries of our holding company, additional capital contributions to the reinsurance affiliates could be needed. These reinsurance arrangements permit MGIC to write insurance with a higher coverage percentage than it could on its own under certain state-specific requirements.
Although we currently meet the Capital Requirements of the jurisdictions in which we write business, in December 2009, the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Wisconsin (“OCI”) issued an order waiving, until December 31, 2011, its Capital Requirements. On January 23, 2012, the OCI issued an order (the “New Order”) waiving, until December 31, 2013, its Capital Requirements. In place of the Capital Requirements, the New Order provides, as did the prior order, that MGIC can write new business as long as it maintains regulatory capital that the OCI determines is reasonably in excess of a level that would constitute a financially hazardous condition. Pursuant to the New Order, MGIC contributed $200 million to MGIC Indemnity Corporation (“MIC”), a direct subsidiary of MGIC, in January 2012, as part of the plan discussed below to write new mortgage insurance in MIC in certain jurisdictions.
The New Order requires MGIC Investment Corporation, beginning January 1, 2012 and continuing through the earlier of December 31, 2013 and the termination of the New Order (the “Covered Period”), to make cash equity contributions to MGIC as may be necessary so that its “Liquid Assets” are at least $1 billion (this portion of the New Order is referred to as the “Keepwell Provision”). “Liquid Assets”, which include those of MGIC as well as those held in certain of our subsidiaries, excluding MIC and its reinsurance affiliates, are the sum of (i) the aggregate cash and cash equivalents, (ii) fair market value of investments and (iii) assets held in trusts supporting the obligations of captive mortgage reinsurers to MGIC. As of December 31, 2011, “Liquid Assets” were approximately $6.4 billion. Although we do not expect that MGIC’s Liquid Assets will fall below $1 billion during the Covered Period, we do expect the amount of Liquid Assets to continue to decline materially after December 31, 2011 and through the end of the Covered Period as MGIC’s claim payments and other uses of cash continue to exceed cash generated from operations. For more information about factors that could negatively impact MGIC’s Liquid Assets, see our risk factors titled “We are defendants in private and government litigation and are subject to the risk of additional private litigation, government litigation and regulatory proceedings in the future,” “We have reported net losses for the last five years, expect to continue to report annual net losses, and cannot assure you when we will return to profitability” and “The settlement agreement we reached with the Internal Revenue Service, relating to significant proposed adjustments to our taxable income for 2000 through 2007, may not be finalized” in Item 1A.
We cannot assure you that all Waiver Jurisdictions will grant a waiver of their Capital Requirements, the OCI or any other jurisdiction that has granted a waiver of its Capital Requirements will not modify or revoke the waiver, or will renew the waiver when it expires, or that MGIC could obtain the additional capital necessary to comply with the Capital Requirements. Depending on the circumstances, the amount of additional capital we might need could be substantial. See our risk factor titled “Your ownership in our company may be diluted by additional capital that we raise or if the holders of our outstanding convertible debt convert that debt into shares of our common stock.”
The financial reform legislation that was passed in July 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act” or “Dodd-Frank”) requires a securitizer to retain at least 5% of the risk associated with mortgage loans that are securitized, and in some cases the retained risk may be allocated between the securitizer and the lender that originated the loan. This risk retention requirement does not apply to mortgage loans that are Qualified Residential Mortgages (“QRMs”) or that are insured by the FHA or another federal agency. In March 2011, federal regulators issued the proposed risk retention rule that includes a definition of QRM. The proposed definition of QRM contains many underwriting requirements, including a maximum loan-to-value ratio (“LTV”) of 80% on a home purchase transaction, a prohibition on seller contributions toward a borrower’s down payment or closing costs, and certain limits on a borrower’s debt-to-income ratio. The LTV is to be calculated without including mortgage insurance. The following table shows the percentage of our new risk written by LTV for 2011 and 2010.
The regulators also requested that the public comments include information that may be used to assess whether mortgage insurance reduces the risk of default. We submitted a comment letter, including studies to the effect that mortgage insurance reduces the risk of default.
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 2011, nearly all of our volume was on loans with GSE standard coverage. We charge higher premium rates for higher coverage percentages. To the extent lenders selling loans to GSEs in the future choose charter coverage for loans that we insure, our revenues would be reduced and we could experience other adverse effects.
We rely on information provided to us by the GSEs and servicers. We do not receive all of the information from such sources that is required to determine with certainty the number of loans that are participating in, or have successfully completed, HAMP. We are aware of approximately 12,290 loans in our primary delinquent inventory at December 31, 2011 for which the HAMP trial period has begun and which trial periods have not been reported to us as completed or cancelled. Through December 31, 2011 approximately 37,100 delinquent primary loans have cured their delinquency after entering HAMP and are not in default. In 2011 approximately 18% of our primary cures were the result of a modification, with HAMP accounting for approximately 70% of those modifications. By comparison, in 2010, approximately 27% of our primary cures were the result of a modification, with HAMP accounting for approximately 60% of those modifications. We believe that we have realized the majority of the benefits from HAMP because the number of loans insured by us that we are aware are entering HAMP trial modification periods has decreased significantly over time. Recent announcements by the U.S. Treasury have extended the end date of the HAMP program through 2013, expanded the eligibility criteria of HAMP and increased lenders’ incentives to modify loans through principal forgiveness. Approximately 68% of the loans in our primary delinquent inventory are guaranteed by the GSEs. The GSEs have informed us that they already use expanded criteria (beyond the HAMP guidelines) for determining eligibility for loan modification and currently do not offer principal forgiveness. Therefore, we currently expect new loan modifications will continue to only modestly mitigate our losses in 2012.
In 2009, the GSEs began offering the Home Affordable Refinance Program (“HARP”). HARP allows borrowers who are not delinquent but who may not otherwise be able to refinance their loans under the current GSE underwriting standards, to refinance their loans. We allow the HARP refinances on loans that we insure, regardless of whether the loan meets our current underwriting standards, and we account for the refinance as a loan modification (even where there is a new lender) rather than new insurance written. To incent lenders to allow more current borrowers to refinance their loans, in October 2011, the GSEs and their regulator, FHFA, announced an expansion of HARP. The expansion includes, among other changes, releasing certain representations in certain circumstances benefitting the GSEs. We have agreed to allow these additional HARP refinances including releasing the insured in certain circumstances from certain rescission rights we would have under our policy. While an expansion of HARP may result in fewer delinquent loans and claims in the future, our ability to rescind coverage will be limited in certain circumstances. We are unable to predict what net impact these changes may have on our incurred or paid losses.
In early January 2011, the highest court in Massachusetts, a state in which foreclosures are accomplished by private sale rather than judicial action, held the foreclosure laws of that state required a person seeking to foreclose a mortgage to be the holder of the mortgage at the time notice of foreclosure was published. The servicers who had foreclosed in this case did not provide sufficient evidence that they were the holders of the mortgages and therefore they lacked authority to foreclose. Some courts in other jurisdictions have considered similar issues and reached similar conclusions, but other courts have reached different conclusions. These decisions have not had a direct impact on our claims processes or rescissions.
New insurance written, which increases insurance in force, and is the aggregate principal amount of the mortgages that are insured during a period. Many factors affect new insurance written, including the volume of low down payment home mortgage originations and competition to provide credit enhancement on those mortgages, including competition from the FHA, other mortgage insurers, GSE programs that may reduce or eliminate the demand for mortgage insurance and other alternatives to mortgage insurance. New insurance written does not include loans previously insured by us which are modified, such as loans modified under the Home Affordable Refinance Program.
Premiums are generated by the insurance that is in force during all or a portion of the period. A change in the average insurance in force in the current period compared to an earlier period is a factor that will increase (when the average in force is higher) or reduce (when it is lower) premiums written and earned in the current period, although this effect may be enhanced (or mitigated) by differences in the average premium rate between the two periods as well as by premiums that are returned or expected to be returned in connection with claim payments and rescissions, and premiums ceded to captives or the GSEs. Also, new insurance written and cancellations during a period will generally have a greater effect on premiums written and earned in subsequent periods than in the period in which these events occur.
The state of the economy, including unemployment, and housing values, each of which affects the likelihood that loans will become delinquent and whether loans that are delinquent cure their delinquency. The level of new delinquencies has historically followed a seasonal pattern, with new delinquencies in the first part of the year lower than new delinquencies in the latter part of the year, though this pattern can be affected by the state of the economy and local housing markets.
Each quarter, we re-estimate the premium deficiency reserve on the remaining Wall Street bulk insurance in force. The premium deficiency reserve primarily changes from quarter to quarter as a result of two factors. First, it changes as the actual premiums, losses and expenses that were previously estimated are recognized. Each period such items are reflected in our financial statements as earned premium, losses incurred and expenses. The difference between the amount and timing of actual earned premiums, losses incurred and expenses and our previous estimates used to establish the premium deficiency reserve has an effect (either positive or negative) on that period’s results. Second, the premium deficiency reserve changes as our assumptions relating to the present value of expected future premiums, losses and expenses on the remaining Wall Street bulk insurance in force change. Changes to these assumptions also have an effect on that period’s results.
Our results of operations for 2011 were principally affected by the factors referred to below.
Investment income in 2011 was lower when compared to 2010 due to a decrease in our average invested assets as we continue to meet our claim obligations, as well as a decrease in our average investment yield.
Net realized gains for 2011 included $143.4 million in net realized gains on the sale of fixed income investments and $0.7 million in other-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”) losses. Net realized gains for 2010 included $102.6 million in net realized gains on the sale of fixed income investments and $9.6 million in OTTI losses.
During 2011 the premium deficiency reserve on Wall Street bulk transactions declined by $44 million from $179 million, as of December 31, 2010, to $135 million as of December 31, 2011. The decrease in the premium deficiency reserve represents the net result of actual premiums, losses and expenses as well as a change in net assumptions for the period. The change in net assumptions for 2011 is primarily related to higher estimated ultimate premiums, somewhat offset by higher estimated ultimate losses. The $135 million premium deficiency reserve as of December 31, 2011 reflects the present value of expected future losses and expenses that exceeds the present value of expected future premiums and already established loss reserves.
The amount of our primary new insurance written during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was as follows:
Our persistency rate was 82.9% at December 31, 2011 compared to 84.4% at December 31, 2010 and 84.7% at December 31, 2009. These persistency rates reflect the more restrictive credit policies of lenders (which make it more difficult for homeowners to refinance loans), as well as declines in housing values. During the 1990s, our year-end persistency ranged from a high of 87.4% at December 31, 1990 to a low of 68.1% at December 31, 1998. Since 2000, our year-end persistency ranged from a high of 84.7% at December 31, 2009 to a low of 47.1% at December 31, 2003.
In bulk transactions, the individual loans in the insured portfolio are generally insured to specified levels of coverage. Some of our bulk transactions (approximately 20% of our bulk risk in force) contain aggregate loss limits on the insured portfolio. If claim payments associated with a specific bulk portfolio reach the aggregate loss limit, the remaining insurance in force within the deal may be cancelled and any remaining defaults under the deal are removed from our default inventory.
Net premiums written and earned during 2010 decreased when compared to 2009. The decrease was due to lower average insurance in force and higher levels of premium refunds, offset by lower ceded premiums due to captive terminations and run-offs. In a captive termination, the arrangement is cancelled, with no future premium ceded and funds for any incurred but unpaid losses transferred to us. In a run-off, no new loans are reinsured by the captive but loans previously reinsured continue to be covered, with premium and losses continuing to be ceded on those loans.
We expect our average insurance in force to continue to decline in 2012 because our expected new insurance written levels are not expected to exceed our cancellation activity. We expect our premium yields (net premiums written or earned, expressed on an annual basis, divided by the average insurance in force) for 2012 to continue at approximately the level experienced during 2011.
Effective January 1, 2009, we are no longer ceding new business under excess of loss reinsurance treaties with lender captive reinsurers. Loans reinsured through December 31, 2008 under excess of loss agreements will run off pursuant to the terms of the particular captive arrangement. New business will continue to be ceded under quota share reinsurance arrangements, limited to a 25% cede rate. Beginning in 2009, many of our captive arrangements have either been terminated or placed into run-off.
Net realized investment gains for 2011 included $143.4 million in net realized gains on the sale of fixed income investments, offset by $0.7 million in OTTI losses. We elected to realize these gains, by selling certain securities, given the favorable market conditions experienced in 2011. We then reinvested the funds taking into account our anticipated future claim payment obligations. We also continue to reduce our investments in tax exempt municipal securities and increase our investments in taxable securities. For statutory purposes investments are generally held at amortized cost, therefore the realized gains increased our statutory policyholders’ position or statutory capital. We plan to realize additional gains during 2012.
We had net realized investment gains on the sale of fixed income investments of $102.6 million, offset by $9.6 million in OTTI losses in 2010 and $92.9 million in net realized investment gains, offset by $40.9 million in OTTI losses in 2009. In 2010 and 2009 we reduced our investments in tax exempt municipal securities and increased our investments in taxable securities since the tax benefits to holding tax exempt securities was no longer available. We also sold securities to decrease the duration of the portfolio to provide cash to meet our anticipated claim obligations. The impairment losses in 2010 included credit losses related to debt instruments issued by health facilities, an inflation linked bond and specific issuer auction rate securities. The impairment losses in 2009 included credit losses related to collateralized debt obligations, debt instruments issued by health facilities and mortgage backed bonds.
In addition, our loss reserving methodology incorporates the effects rescission activity is expected to have on the losses we will pay on our delinquent inventory. A variance between ultimate actual rescission rates and these estimates could materially affect our losses. See our risk factor titled “Our losses could increase if rescission rates decrease faster than we are projecting or we do not prevail in proceedings challenging whether our rescissions were proper” in Item 1A.
In 2011, net losses incurred were $1,715 million, comprised of $1,814 million of current year loss development, offset by $99 million of favorable prior years’ loss development. In 2010, net losses incurred were $1,608 million, comprised of $1,875 million of current year loss development, offset by $267 million of favorable prior years’ loss development. In 2009, net losses incurred were $3,379 million, comprised of which $2,913 million of current year loss development and $466 million of unfavorable prior years’ loss development. See Note 9 - “Loss reserves” to our consolidated financial statements in Item 8.
Losses incurred on default notices received in the current year decreased slightly in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to a decrease in the number of new default notices received, net of cures, from 108,701 in 2010 to 86,592 in 2011. Losses incurred on default notices received in the current year decreased more significantly in 2010 compared to 2009 primarily due to a more significant decrease in the number of new default notices received, net of cures, which was 161,081 in 2009. These factors were somewhat offset by a smaller benefit from captive arrangements.
The $267 million decrease in losses incurred in 2010 that was related to defaults that occurred in prior years primarily resulted from a decrease in the expected claim rate on the defaults that occurred in prior periods (approximately $432 million), partially offset by an increase in severity on pool defaults that occurred in prior periods (approximately $185 million). The decrease in the claim rate was based on the resolution of approximately 55% of the prior year default inventory, as well as a re-estimation of amounts to be ultimately paid on defaults remaining in inventory from the end of the prior year. The decrease in the claim rate was due to greater cures experienced during 2010, a portion of which resulted from loan modifications. The increase in pool severity was based on the resolution of defaults that occurred in prior periods with higher claim amounts, which in part, were applied to remaining deductibles on certain pool policies. The remaining decrease in losses incurred related to prior years (approximately $20 million) related to LAE reserves and reinsurance.
The decrease in the estimated mitigation of incurred losses in 2011 compared to the same period in 2010 is due to a decline in the expected rescission rate for loans in our default inventory during 2011 compared to a more modest decline in 2010.
If the insured disputes our right to rescind coverage, the outcome of the dispute ultimately would be determined by legal proceedings. Legal proceedings disputing our right to rescind coverage may be brought up to three years after the lender has obtained title to the property (typically through a foreclosure) or the property was sold in a sale that we approved, whichever is applicable, although in a few jurisdictions there is a longer time to bring such an action. For the majority of our rescissions that are not subject to a settlement agreement, the period in which a dispute may be brought has not ended. We consider a rescission resolved for financial reporting purposes even though legal proceedings have been initiated and are ongoing. Although it is reasonably possible that, when the proceedings are completed, there will be a determination that we were not entitled to rescind in all cases, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the potential liability. Under Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 450-20, an estimated loss from such proceedings is accrued for only if we determine that the loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. Therefore, when establishing our loss reserves, we do not include additional loss reserves that would reflect an adverse outcome from ongoing legal proceedings, including those with Countrywide. For more information about these legal proceedings, see Note 20 - “Litigation and contingencies” to our consolidated financial statements in Item 8.
Under these agreements the captives are required to maintain a separate trust account, of which we are the sole beneficiary. Premiums ceded to a captive are deposited into the applicable trust account to support the captive’s layer of insured risk. These amounts are held in the trust account and are available to pay reinsured losses. The captive’s ultimate liability is limited to the assets in the trust account. When specific time periods are met and the individual trust account balance has reached a required level, then the individual captive may make authorized withdrawals from its applicable trust account. In most cases, the captives are also allowed to withdraw funds from the trust account to pay verifiable federal income taxes and operational expenses. Conversely, if the account balance falls below certain thresholds, the individual captive may be required to contribute funds to the trust account. However, in most cases, our sole remedy if a captive does not contribute such funds is to put the captive into run-off, in which case no new business would be ceded to the captive. In the event that the captive’s incurred but unpaid losses exceed the funds in the trust account, and the captive does not deposit adequate funds, we may also be allowed to terminate the captive agreement, assume the captive’s obligations, transfer the assets in the trust accounts to us, and retain all future premium payments. We intend to exercise this additional remedy when it is available to us. However, if the captive would challenge our right to do so, the matter would be determined by arbitration.
A rollforward of our primary insurance default inventory for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 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.
General Notes: (a) For the information presented for 2011 and 2010, the FICO credit score for a loan with multiple borrowers is the lowest of the borrowers’ “decision FICO scores.” For the information presented prior to 2010, the FICO score for a loan with multiple borrowers was the income weighted average of the “decision FICO scores” for each borrower. A borrower’s “decision FICO score” is determined as follows: if there are three FICO scores available, the middle FICO score is used; if two FICO scores are available, the lower of the two is used; if only one FICO score is available, it is used. This change made our reporting of FICO credit scores consistent with the FICO credit scores that we use for underwriting purposes.
(b) Servicers continue to pay our premiums for nearly all of the loans in our default inventory, but in some cases, servicers stop paying our premiums. In those cases, even though the loans continue to be included in our default inventory, the applicable loans are removed from our insurance in force and risk in force. Loans where servicers have stopped paying premiums include 9,598 defaults with a risk of $486 million as of December 31, 2011.
(c) During the fourth quarter of 2011 we conducted a review of our single life of loan policies and concluded that approximately 21,000 of these policies were no longer in force, and as a result we cancelled these policies with insurance in force of approximately $2.3 billion and risk in force of approximately $0.5 billion. It may be possible that some of these policies will be reinstated based on information subsequently provided by our customers.
(1) At December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 30,250, 36,066 and 45,907 loans in default, respectively, related to Wall Street bulk transactions.
The primary and pool loss reserves at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 appear in the table below.
(1) Since a number of our pool policies include aggregate loss limits and/or deductibles, we do not disclose an average direct reserve per default for our pool business.
The primary default inventory and primary loss reserves by region at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 appears in the table below.
The primary default inventory at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 separated between our flow and bulk business appears in the table below.
The flow default inventory by policy year at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 appears in the table below.
At December 31, 2011 the total fair value of our investment portfolio was $5.8 billion. In addition, at December 31, 2011 our total assets included approximately $1.0 billion of cash and cash equivalents as shown on our consolidated balance sheet in Item 8. At December 31, 2011, based on fair value, approximately 100% of our fixed income securities were investment grade securities. The percentage of investments rated BBB may continue to increase as we reinvest to achieve higher yields and, in part, due to the reduced availability of highly rated corporate securities. Lower rated investments have greater risk. Our fixed income securities are readily marketable, other than our auction rate securities discussed below, and concentrated in maturities of less than 15 years. The composition of ratings at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 are shown in the table below.
As a result of the persistent failed auctions, and the uncertainty of when these investments could be liquidated at par, the investment principal associated with failed auctions will not be accessible until successful auctions occur, a buyer is found outside of the auction process, the issuers establish a different form of financing to replace these securities, or final payments come due according to the contractual maturities of the debt issues. However, we continue to believe we will have liquidity to our ARS portfolio by December 31, 2014.
The total amount of unrecognized tax benefits as of December 31, 2011 is $110.1 million. The total amount of the unrecognized tax benefits that would affect our effective tax rate is $97.5 million. We recognize interest accrued and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in income taxes. We have accrued $26.7 million for the payment of interest as of December 31, 2011. Although the IRS is reconsidering the terms of our settlement agreement with them, as discussed above, if approved our total amount of unrecognized tax benefits would be reduced by $104.0 million during 2012, while after taking into account prior payments and the effect of available NOL carrybacks, any net cash outflows would approximate $23 million.
our investment portfolio (which is discussed in “Financial Condition” above), and interest income on the portfolio,
net premiums that we will receive from our existing insurance in force as well as policies that we write in the future and
The senior notes, convertible senior notes and convertible debentures are obligations of MGIC Investment Corporation and not of its subsidiaries. The payment of dividends from our insurance subsidiaries, which prior to raising capital in the public markets in 2008 and 2010 had been the principal source of our holding company cash inflow, is restricted by insurance regulation. MGIC is the principal source of dividend-paying capacity. Since 2008, MGIC has not paid any dividends to our holding company. Through 2012, MGIC cannot pay any dividends to our holding company without approval from the OCI.
As of December 31, 2011, our holding company’s debt obligations were $906 million in par value consisting of:
$171 million in par value of Senior Notes due in November 2015, with an annual interest cost of $9 million;
Our holding company has no other material sources of cash inflows other than investment income. Furthermore, our holding company contributed $200 million to its insurance operations in December 2011 to support these operations. Any further contributions would further decrease our holding company cash and investments.
For additional information regarding regulatory capital see “Overview-Capital” above as well as our risk factor titled “Regulatory capital requirements may prevent us from continuing to write new insurance on an uninterrupted basis” in item 1A.
For further information about the importance of MGIC’s ratings, see our risk factor titled “MGIC may not continue to meet the GSEs’ mortgage insurer eligibility requirements” in Item 1A.
In considering the potential sensitivity of the factors underlying our best estimate of loss reserves, it is possible that even a relatively small change in estimated claim rate or a relatively small percentage change in estimated claim amount could have a significant impact on reserves and, correspondingly, on results of operations. For example, a $1,000 change in the average severity reserve factor combined with a 1% change in the average claim rate reserve factor would change the reserve amount by approximately $190 million as of December 31, 2011. Historically, it has not been uncommon for us to experience variability in the development of the loss reserves through the end of the following year at this level or higher, as shown by the historical development of our loss reserves in the table below:
Estimation of losses is inherently judgmental. The conditions that affect the claim rate and claim severity include the current and future state of the economy, including unemployment and local housing markets. Current conditions in the housing and mortgage industries make these assumptions more volatile than they would otherwise be. The actual amount of the claim payments may be substantially different than our loss reserve estimates. Our estimates could be adversely affected by several factors, including a further deterioration of regional or national economic conditions, including unemployment, leading to a reduction in borrowers’ income and thus their ability to make mortgage payments, and a further drop in housing values that could result in, among other things, greater losses on loans that have pool insurance, and may affect borrower willingness to continue to make mortgage payments when the value of the home is below the mortgage balance and mitigation from rescissions being materially less than assumed. Our estimates are also affected by any agreements we enter into regarding claim payments, such as the settlement agreements discussed below under “Losses incurred”. Changes to our estimates could result in a material impact to our results of operations, even in a stable economic environment.
Note: In the second half of 2011, Countrywide materially increased the percentage of loans for which it is rebutting the assertions that we make prior to rescinding a loan. When we receive a rebuttal prior to a rescission, we do not rescind coverage until after we respond to the rebuttal. Therefore, in addition to our substantial pipeline of claims investigations, we have a substantial pipeline of pre-rescission rebuttals that, based on our historical experience with such rebuttals, we expect will eventually result in rescissions. We continue to expect that the percentage of claims that will be resolved through rescissions will continue to decline after resolution of the rebuttal pipeline.
We anticipate that the ever-to-date rescission rate on the more recent quarters will increase as the ever-to-date resolution percentage moves closer to 100%.
Our estimates could also be positively affected by government efforts to assist current borrowers in refinancing to new loans, assisting delinquent borrowers and lenders in reducing their mortgage payments, and forestalling foreclosures.
When a policy term ends, the primary mortgage insurance written by us is renewable at the insured’s option through continued payment of the premium in accordance with the schedule established at the inception of the policy term. We have no ability to reunderwrite or reprice these policies after issuance. Premiums written under policies having single and annual premium payments are initially deferred as unearned premium reserve and earned over the policy term. Premiums written on policies covering more than one year are amortized over the policy life in accordance with the expiration of risk which is the anticipated claim payment pattern based on historical experience. Premiums written on annual policies are earned on a monthly pro rata basis. Premiums written on monthly policies are earned as the monthly coverage is provided. When a policy is cancelled, all premium that is non-refundable is immediately earned. Any refundable premium is returned to the lender. Cancellations include rescissions and policies cancelled due to claim payment. When a policy is rescinded, all previously collected premium is returned to the lender and when a claim is paid we return any premium received since the date of default. The liability associated with our estimate of premium to be returned is accrued for separately and separate components of this liability are included in “Other liabilities” and “Premium deficiency reserves” on our consolidated balance sheet. Changes in these liabilities effect premiums written and earned and change in premium deficiency reserve, respectively. In periods prior to 2010, the liability associated with premium to be returned on claim payments was included in loss reserves and changes to this estimate affected losses incurred. This policy did not have a significant impact on premiums written and earned or losses incurred in periods prior to 2010. The actual return of premium for all periods affects premium written and earned. Policy cancellations also lower the persistency rate which is a variable used in calculating the rate of amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs discussed below.
We adopted fair value accounting guidance that became effective January 1, 2008. This guidance addresses aspects of the expanding application of fair-value accounting. The guidance defines fair value, establishes a consistent framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosure requirements regarding fair-value measurements and provides companies with an option to report selected financial assets and liabilities at fair value with changes in fair value reported in earnings. The option to account for selected financial assets and liabilities at fair value is made on an instrument-by-instrument basis at the time of acquisition. For the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, we did not elect the fair value option for any financial instruments acquired for which the primary basis of accounting is not fair value.
A 1.00% change in the discount rate would change the value of our ARS by approximately $3.8 million. A two year change to the years to liquidity assumption would change the value of our ARS by approximately $5.9 million.
MGIC Investment Corporation is a holding company which, through Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation ("MGIC") and several other subsidiaries, is principally engaged in the mortgage insurance business. We provide mortgage insurance to lenders throughout the United States and to government sponsored entities (“GSEs”) to protect against loss from defaults on low down payment residential mortgage loans. Our principal product is primary mortgage insurance. Primary mortgage insurance may be written through the flow channel, in which loans are insured in individual, loan-by-loan transactions. Primary mortgage insurance may also be written through the bulk channel, in which portfolios of loans are individually insured in single, bulk transactions. Prior to 2008, we wrote significant volume through the bulk channel, substantially all of which was Wall Street bulk business, which we discontinued writing in 2007. We have not written any business through the bulk channel since 2008. Prior to 2009, we also wrote pool mortgage insurance. Pool insurance generally covers the excess of the loss on a defaulted mortgage loan which exceeds the claim payment under the primary coverage, if primary insurance is required on that mortgage loan, as well as the total loss on a defaulted mortgage loan which did not require primary insurance. Pool insurance may have a stated aggregate loss limit for a pool of loans and may also have a deductible under which no losses are paid by the insurer until losses on the pool of loans exceed the deductible. We wrote an insignificant amount of pool business during 2009 and none in 2010 or 2011. Through certain other non-insurance subsidiaries, we also provide various services for the mortgage finance industry, such as contract underwriting and portfolio analysis and retention. We began our international operations in Australia, where we started to write business in June 2007. Since 2008, we are no longer writing new business in Australia. Our Australian operations are included in our consolidated financial statements; however they are not material to our consolidated results.
At December 31, 2011, our direct domestic primary insurance in force was $172.9 billion, which represents the principal balance in our records of all mortgage loans that we insure, and our direct domestic primary risk in force was $44.5 billion, which represents the insurance in force multiplied by the insurance coverage percentage. Our direct pool risk in force at December 31, 2011 was approximately $1.9 billion ($0.7 billion on pool policies with aggregate loss limits and $1.2 billion on pool policies without aggregate loss limits). See Note 20 - “Litigation and contingencies” for a discussion of our interpretation of the appropriate aggregate loss limit on certain pool policies we have with Freddie Mac. At December 31, 2011, our loss reserves under these policies have been limited under our interpretation of the aggregate. Our risk in force in Australia at December 31, 2011 was approximately $0.9 billion which represents the risk associated with 100% coverage on the insurance in force. However the mortgage insurance we provided in Australia only covers the unpaid loan balance after the sale of the underlying property.
The insurance laws or regulations of 16 jurisdictions, including Wisconsin, our domiciliary state, require a mortgage insurer to maintain a minimum amount of statutory capital relative to the risk in force (or a similar measure) in order for the mortgage insurer to continue to write new business. We refer to these requirements as the “Capital Requirements.” While formulations of minimum capital may vary in certain jurisdictions, the most common measure applied allows for a maximum permitted risk-to-capital ratio of 25 to 1. A risk-to-capital ratio will increase if the percentage decrease in capital exceeds the percentage decrease in insured risk. Therefore, as capital decreases, the same dollar decrease in capital will cause a greater percentage decrease in capital and a greater increase in the risk-to-capital ratio. Wisconsin does not regulate capital by using a risk-to-capital measure but instead requires us to maintain a minimum policyholder position (“MPP”). The “policyholder position” of a mortgage insurer is its net worth or surplus, contingency reserve and a portion of the reserves for unearned premiums.
In December 2011, our holding company, MGIC Investment Corporation, contributed $200 million to increase the statutory capital of MGIC to approximately $1.6 billion at December 31, 2011. (As of December 31, 2011, there was $487 million of cash and investments at our holding company). At December 31, 2011, MGIC’s risk-to-capital ratio was 20.3 to 1 and its policyholder position exceeded the MPP by $185 million. We currently expect MGIC’s risk-to-capital to exceed 25 to 1 in the second half of 2012. At December 31, 2011, the risk-to-capital ratio of our combined insurance operations (which includes reinsurance affiliates) was 22.2 to 1. A higher risk-to-capital ratio on a combined basis may indicate that, in order for MGIC to continue to utilize reinsurance arrangements with its subsidiaries or subsidiaries of our holding company, additional capital contributions to the reinsurance affiliates could be needed. These reinsurance arrangements permit MGIC to write insurance with a higher coverage percentage than it could on its own under certain state-specific requirements.
The New Order requires MGIC Investment Corporation, beginning January 1, 2012 and continuing through the earlier of December 31, 2013 and the termination of the New Order (the “Covered Period”), to make cash equity contributions to MGIC as may be necessary so that its “Liquid Assets” are at least $1 billion (this portion of the New Order is referred to as the “Keepwell Provision”). “Liquid Assets”, which include those of MGIC as well as those held in certain of our subsidiaries, excluding MIC and its reinsurance affiliates, are the sum of (i) the aggregate cash and cash equivalents, (ii) fair market value of investments and (iii) assets held in trusts supporting the obligations of captive mortgage reinsurers to MGIC. As of December 31, 2011, “Liquid Assets” were approximately $6.4 billion. Although we do not expect that MGIC’s Liquid Assets will fall below $1 billion during the Covered Period, we do expect the amount of Liquid Assets to continue to decline materially after December 31, 2011 and through the end of the Covered Period as MGIC’s claim payments and other uses of cash continue to exceed cash generated from operations. For more information about factors that could negatively impact MGIC’s Liquid Assets, see Note 20 - “Litigation and contingencies” and Note 14 - “Income taxes.”
We cannot assure you that all Waiver Jurisdictions will grant a waiver of their Capital Requirements, the OCI or any other jurisdiction that has granted a waiver of its Capital Requirements will not modify or revoke the waiver, or will renew the waiver when it expires, or that MGIC could obtain the additional capital necessary to comply with the Capital Requirements. Depending on the circumstances, the amount of additional capital we might need could be substantial.
Under the Freddie Mac Approval, MIC may write business only in those jurisdictions where MGIC does not meet the Capital Requirements and does not obtain appropriate waivers of those requirements. Freddie Mac anticipates that MGIC will obtain waivers of the minimum capital requirements of most jurisdictions that have such requirements. Therefore, as of the date of the Freddie Mac Approval, approval of MIC as an eligible mortgage insurer is only given for New York, Kansas, Kentucky, Idaho and Puerto Rico. The Freddie Mac Approval, includes certain conditions and restrictions to its continued effectiveness, including requirements that MGIC contribute $200 million to MIC on or before January 31, 2012, which MGIC did; MIC provide MGIC access to the capital of MIC in an amount necessary for MGIC to maintain sufficient liquidity to satisfy its obligations under insurance policies issued by MGIC; while MIC is writing new business under the Freddie Mac approval, MIC may not exceed a risk-to-capital ratio of 20:1; MGIC and MIC comply with all terms and conditions of the New Order and the New Order remain effective. As noted above, we cannot assure you that the OCI will not modify or revoke the New Order, or that it will renew it when it expires. As noted above, Freddie Mac has approved MIC as a Limited Insurer only through December 31, 2012 and Freddie Mac may modify the terms and conditions of its approval at any time without notice and may withdraw its approval of MIC as an eligible insurer at any time in its sole discretion. Unless Freddie Mac extends the term of its approval of MIC, whether MIC will continue as an eligible mortgage insurer after December 31, 2012 will be determined by Freddie Mac’s mortgage insurer eligibility requirements then in effect.
A failure to meet the Capital Requirements to insure new business does not necessarily mean that MGIC does not have sufficient resources to pay claims on its insurance liabilities. While we believe that MGIC has sufficient claims paying resources to meet its claim obligations on its insurance in force, even in scenarios in which it fails to meet Capital Requirements, we cannot assure you that the events that led to MGIC failing to meet Capital Requirements would not also result in it not having sufficient claims paying resources. Furthermore, our estimates of MGIC’s claims paying resources and claim obligations are based on various assumptions. These assumptions include our anticipated rescission activity; the timing of the receipt of claims on loans in our delinquency inventory and future claims that we anticipate will ultimately be received; future housing values and future unemployment rates. These assumptions are subject to inherent uncertainty and require judgment by management. Current conditions in the domestic economy make the assumptions about when anticipated claims will be received, housing values and unemployment rates highly volatile in the sense that there is a wide range of reasonably possible outcomes. Our anticipated rescission activity is also subject to inherent uncertainty due to the difficulty of predicting the amount of claims that will be rescinded and the outcome of any legal proceedings related to rescissions that we make, including those with Countrywide. (For more information about the Countrywide legal proceedings, see Note 20 - “Litigation and contingencies.”)
Securities available-for-sale classified in Level 3 are not readily marketable and are valued using internally developed models based on the present value of expected cash flows. Our Level 3 securities primarily consist of auction rate securities as observable inputs or value drivers are unavailable due to events described in Note 6 - “Investments.” Due to limited market information, we utilized a discounted cash flow (“DCF”) model to derive an estimate of fair value of these assets at December 31, 2011 and 2010. The assumptions used in preparing the DCF model included estimates with respect to the amount and timing of future interest and principal payments, the probability of full repayment of the principal considering the credit quality and guarantees in place, and the rate of return required by investors to own such securities given the current liquidity risk associated with them. The DCF model for the auction rate securities is based on the following key assumptions:
Discount rates ranging from 2.30% to 4.30%, which include a spread for liquidity risk.
Real estate acquired through claim settlement is fair valued at the lower of our acquisition cost or a percentage of appraised value. The percentage applied to appraised value is based upon our historical sales experience adjusted for current trends.
Reserves also provide for the estimated costs of settling claims, including legal and other expenses and general expenses of administering the claims settlement process. (See Note 9 - “Loss reserves.”)
Calculations of premium deficiency reserves require the use of significant judgments and estimates to determine the present value of future premium and present value of expected losses and expenses on our business. The present value of future premium relies on, among other factors, assumptions about persistency and repayment patterns on underlying loans. The present value of expected losses and expenses depends on assumptions relating to severity of claims and claim rates on current defaults, and expected defaults in future periods. These assumptions also include an estimate of expected rescission activity. Assumptions used in calculating the deficiency reserves can be affected by volatility in the current housing and mortgage lending industries and these effects could be material. To the extent premium patterns and actual loss experience differ from the assumptions used in calculating the premium deficiency reserves, the differences between the actual results and our estimate will affect future period earnings. (See Note 10 - “Premium deficiency reserve.”)
Fee income of our non-insurance subsidiaries is earned and recognized as the services are provided and the customer is obligated to pay. Fee income consists primarily of contract underwriting and related fee-based services provided to lenders and is included in “Other revenue” on the statement of operations.
Federal tax law permits mortgage guaranty insurance companies to deduct from taxable income, subject to certain limitations, the amounts added to contingency loss reserves, which are recorded for regulatory purposes. Generally, the amounts so deducted must be included in taxable income in the tenth subsequent year. However, to the extent incurred losses exceed 35% of net premiums earned in a calendar year, early withdrawals may be made from the contingency reserves with regulatory approval, which would lead to amounts being included in taxable income earlier than the tenth year. The deduction is allowed only to the extent that U.S. government non-interest bearing tax and loss bonds are purchased and held in an amount equal to the tax benefit attributable to such deduction. We account for these purchases as a payment of current federal income taxes. There were no purchases of tax and loss bonds in 2009, 2010 or 2011. The last tax and loss bonds we held were redeemed in 2009.
We offer both medical and dental benefits for retired domestic employees, their spouses and eligible dependents until the retiree reaches the age of 65. Under the plan retirees pay a premium for these benefits. We accrue the estimated costs of retiree medical and dental benefits over the period during which employees render the service that qualifies them for benefits. Historically benefits were generally funded as they were due, however beginning in 2009 some benefits have been paid from the fund. The cost to us has not been significant. (See Note 13 - “Benefit plans.”)
We have certain share-based compensation plans. Under the fair value method, compensation cost is measured at the grant date based on the fair value of the award and is recognized over the service period which generally corresponds to the vesting period. The fair value of awards classified as liabilities is remeasured at each reporting period until the award is settled. Awards under our plans generally vest over periods ranging from one to five years. (See Note 18 - “Share-based compensation plans.”)
Our basic EPS is based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding, which excludes participating securities with non-forfeitable rights to dividends of 1.1 million, 1.8 million and 1.9 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 because they were anti-dilutive due to our reported net loss. Typically, diluted EPS is based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding plus common stock equivalents which include certain stock awards, stock options and the dilutive effect of our convertible debt. In accordance with accounting guidance, if we report a net loss from continuing operations, then our diluted EPS is computed in the same manner as the basic EPS. In addition, if any common stock equivalents are anti-dilutive they are always excluded from the calculation. The following is a reconciliation of the weighted average number of shares; however for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, common stock equivalents of 55.6 million, 47.4 million and 37.6 million, respectively, were not included because they were anti-dilutive.
In May 2011, new guidance was issued regarding fair value measurement. The guidance in the new standard is intended to harmonize the fair value measurement and disclosure requirements for United States and International standards. Many of the changes in the standard represent clarifications to existing guidance, but the standard also includes some new guidance and new required disclosures. The guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. We are currently evaluating the provisions of this guidance and the impact on our financial statements and disclosures.
In October 2010, new guidance was issued on accounting for costs associated with acquiring or renewing insurance contracts. The new guidance will likely change how insurance companies account for acquisition costs, particularly in determining what costs are deferrable. The new requirements are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011, either prospectively or by retrospective adjustment. We are currently evaluating the provisions of this guidance, however we do not expect the new guidance to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures.
Credit Based Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC (“C-BASS”), a former minority-owned, unconsolidated, joint venture investment, provided certain services to us during 2009 in exchange for fees. The impact of these transactions was not material to us.
There were no other-than-temporary impairment losses recorded in other comprehensive income at December 31, 2011 and 2010.
Under the current guidance a debt security impairment is deemed other than temporary if we either intend to sell the security, or it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security before recovery or we do not expect to collect cash flows sufficient to recover the amortized cost basis of the security. During 2011 we recognized OTTI losses in earnings of $0.7 million, related to further impairments on certain ARS previously impaired in 2010. During 2010 we recognized OTTI losses in earnings of $9.6 million. During 2009 we recognized OTTI losses in earnings of $40.9 million and an additional $1.8 million of OTTI losses in other comprehensive income. In 2010, our OTTI losses were primarily related to certain securities for which the expected cash flows are not sufficient to recover the amortized cost. In 2009, our OTTI losses were primarily related to securities for which we had the intent to sell.
The following table provides a rollforward of the amount related to credit losses recognized in earnings for which a portion of an OTTI loss was recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010.
The fair value of our ARS backed by student loans was approximately $170 million and $358 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. ARS are intended to behave like short-term debt instruments because their interest rates are reset periodically through an auction process, most commonly at intervals of 7, 28 and 35 days. The same auction process has historically provided a means by which we may rollover the investment or sell these securities at par in order to provide us with liquidity as needed. The ARS we hold are collateralized by portfolios of student loans, substantially all of which are ultimately 97% guaranteed by the United States Department of Education. At December 31, 2011, our ARS portfolio was 83% AAA/Aaa-rated by one or more of the major rating agencies.
In mid-February 2008, auctions began to fail due to insufficient buyers, as the amount of securities submitted for sale in auctions exceeded the aggregate amount of the bids. For each failed auction, the interest rate on the security moves to a maximum rate specified for each security, and generally resets at a level higher than specified short-term interest rate benchmarks. At December 31, 2011, our entire ARS portfolio, consisting of 19 investments, was subject to failed auctions; however, from the period when the auctions began to fail through December 31, 2011, $361 million in par value of ARS was either sold or called, with the average amount we received being approximately 97% of par which approximated the aggregate fair value prior to redemption. To date, we have collected all interest due on our ARS.
Note: Components of the 2009 and 2010 “Change in unrealized investment gains (losses), net of tax” have been reclassified. The total “Change in unrealized investment gains (losses), net of tax” remains unchanged.
We had $22.3 million and $21.8 million of investments on deposit with various states at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, due to regulatory requirements of those state insurance departments.
For assets and liabilities measured at fair value using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3), a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 is as follows:
If we fail to meet any of the covenants of the Senior Notes discussed above; there is a failure to pay when due at maturity, or a default results in the acceleration of maturity of, any of our other debt in an aggregate amount of $40 million or more; or we fail to make a payment of principal on the Senior Notes when due or a payment of interest on the Senior Notes within thirty days after due and we are not successful in obtaining an agreement from holders of a majority of the Senior Notes to change (or waive) the applicable requirement or payment default, then the holders of 25% or more of our Senior Notes would have the right to accelerate the maturity of those notes. In addition, the trustee, U.S. Bank National Association, of the Senior Notes could, independent of any action by holders of Senior Notes, accelerate the maturity of the Senior Notes.
Interest payments on the Senior Notes were $19.3 million, $20.5 million and $25.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively.
At December 31, 2011 and 2010 we had outstanding $345 million principal amount of 5% Convertible Senior Notes due in 2017. Interest on the Convertible Senior Notes is payable semi-annually in arrears on May 1 and November 1 of each year. We do not have the right to defer interest payments on the Convertible Senior Notes. The Convertible Senior Notes will mature on May 1, 2017, unless earlier converted by the holders or repurchased by us. Covenants in the Convertible Senior Notes include a requirement to notify holders in advance of certain events and that we and the designated subsidiaries (defined above) preserve our corporate existence, rights and franchises unless we or any such subsidiary determines that such preservation is no longer necessary in the conduct of its business and that the loss thereof is not disadvantageous to the Convertible Senior Notes.
The Alternative Payment Mechanism does not apply during any period between scheduled interest payment dates if there is a “market disruption event” that occurs over a specified portion of such period. Market disruption events include any material adverse change in domestic or international economic or financial conditions.
The fair value of the debentures was approximately $189.6 million and $432.4 million, respectively, at December 31, 2011 and 2010, as determined using available pricing for these debentures or similar instruments.
Rescissions did not have a significant impact on incurred losses in 2011. Rescissions mitigated our incurred losses by an estimated $0.2 billion and $2.5 billion in 2010 and 2009, respectively.
Rescissions mitigated our paid losses by an estimated $0.6 billion, $1.0 billion and $0.9 billion in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, which excludes amounts that may have been applied to a deductible.
The “Losses incurred” section of the table above shows losses incurred on default notices received in the current year and in prior years. The amount of losses incurred relating to default notices received in the current year represents the estimated amount to be ultimately paid on such default notices. The amount of losses incurred relating to default notices received in prior years represents the actual claim rate and severity associated with those defaults notices resolved in the current year differing from the estimated liability at the prior year-end, as well as a re-estimation of amounts to be ultimately paid on defaults remaining in inventory from the end of the prior year. This re-estimation of the estimated claim rate and estimated severity is the result of our review of current trends in default inventory, such as percentages of defaults that have resulted in a claim, the amount of the claims, changes in the relative level of defaults by geography and changes in average loan exposure.
In 2011, net losses incurred were $1,715 million, comprised of $1,814 million of current year loss development, offset by $99 million of favorable prior years’ loss development. In 2010, net losses incurred were $1,608 million, comprised of $1,875 million of current year loss development, offset by $267 million of favorable prior years’ loss development. In 2009, net losses incurred were $3,379 million, comprised of which $2,913 million of current year loss development and $466 million of unfavorable prior years’ loss development.
The “Losses paid” section of the table above shows the breakdown between claims paid on default notices received in the current year and default notices received in prior years. It has historically taken, prior to the last few years, on average, approximately twelve months for a default which is not cured to develop into a paid claim, therefore, most losses paid relate to default notices received in prior years. Due to a combination of reasons that have slowed the rate at which claims are received and paid, including foreclosure moratoriums and suspensions, servicing delays, court delays, loan modifications, our fraud investigations and our claim rescissions and denials for misrepresentation, it is difficult to estimate how long it may take for current and future defaults that do not cure to develop into paid claims. In 2011, we experienced an increase in claims paid on default notices received in the current year due to fewer claim investigations and an increase in short sales. The “Losses paid” section of the table also includes a decrease in losses paid related to terminated reinsurance agreements as noted in footnote (5) of the table above.
The liability associated with our estimate of premiums to be refunded on expected claim payments is accrued for separately at December 31, 2011 and 2010 and approximated $114 million and $113 million, respectively. Separate components of this liability are included in “Other liabilities” and “Premium deficiency reserve” on our consolidated balance sheet. (See Note 3 - “Summary of significant accounting policies - Revenue recognition”)
Our loss reserving methodology incorporates the effects we expect rescission activity to have on the losses we will pay on our delinquent inventory. A variance between ultimate actual rescission rates and these estimates, as a result of the outcome of claims investigations, litigation, settlements or other factors, could materially affect our losses. We estimate rescissions mitigated our incurred losses by approximately $2.5 billion in 2009 and $0.2 billion in 2010. In 2011, we estimate that rescissions had no significant impact on our losses incurred. All of these figures include the benefit of claims not paid in the period as well as the impact of changes in our estimated expected rescission activity on our loss reserves in the period. At December 31, 2011, we had 175,639 loans in our primary delinquency inventory; a significant portion of these loans will cure their delinquency or be rescinded and will not involve paid claims.
The decrease in the estimated mitigation of incurred losses in 2011 compared to 2010 is due to a decline in the expected rescission rate for loans in our default inventory during 2011 compared to a more modest decline in 2010.
In addition to the proceedings involving Countrywide, we are involved in legal proceedings with respect to rescissions that we do not consider to be collectively material in amount. Although it is reasonably possible that, when these discussions or proceedings are completed, there will be a conclusion or determination that we were not entitled to rescind in all cases, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the potential liability.
In 2010, we entered into a settlement agreement with a lender-customer regarding our rescission practices. In April 2011, Freddie Mac advised its servicers that they must obtain its prior approval for rescission settlements and Fannie Mae advised its servicers that they are prohibited from entering into such settlements. In addition, in April 2011, Fannie Mae notified us that we must obtain its prior approval to enter into certain settlements. We continue to discuss with other lender-customers their objections to material rescissions and have reached settlement terms with several of our significant lender-customers. Any definitive agreement with these customers would be subject to GSE approval. One GSE has approved one of our settlement agreements, but this agreement remains subject to the approval of the other GSE. We believe that it is probable (within the meaning of ASC 450-20) that this agreement will be approved by the other GSE. As a result, we considered the terms of the agreement when establishing our loss reserves at December 31, 2011. This agreement did not have a significant impact on our established loss reserves. Neither GSE has approved our other settlement agreements and the terms of these other agreements were not considered when establishing our loss reserves at December 31, 2011. There can be no assurances that both GSEs will approve any settlement agreements and the GSEs may approve some of our settlement agreements and reject others based on the specific terms of those agreements.
A rollforward of our primary default inventory for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 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.
The decrease in the premium deficiency reserve for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $44 million, $14 million and $261 million, respectively, as shown in the charts below. The decrease represents the net result of actual premiums, losses and expenses as well as a net change in assumptions for these periods. The change in assumptions for 2011 is primarily related to higher estimated ultimate premiums resulting principally from an increase in the projected persistency rate, somewhat offset by higher estimated ultimate losses resulting principally from an increase in the number of projected claims that will ultimately be resolved as a claim paid. The change in assumptions for 2010 is primarily related to higher estimated ultimate premiums, which is principally related to an increase in the projected persistency rate. The change in assumptions for 2009 primarily related to lower estimated ultimate losses, offset by lower estimated ultimate premiums, both due to higher expected rates of rescission.
(2) A positive number for changes in assumptions relating to premiums, losses, expenses and discount rate indicates a redundancy of prior premium deficiency reserves.
We cede a portion of our business to reinsurers and record assets for reinsurance recoverable on loss reserves and prepaid reinsurance premiums. We cede primary business to reinsurance subsidiaries of certain mortgage lenders (“captives”). The majority of ceded premiums relates to these agreements. Historically, most of these reinsurance arrangements are aggregate excess of loss reinsurance agreements, and the remainder have been quota share agreements. Under the aggregate excess of loss agreements, we are responsible for the first aggregate layer of loss (typically 4% or 5%), the captives are responsible for the second aggregate layer of loss (typically 5% or 10%) and we are responsible for any remaining loss. The layers are typically expressed as a percentage of the original risk on an annual book of business reinsured by the captive. The premium cessions on these agreements typically range from 25% to 40% of the direct premium. Under a quota share arrangement premiums and losses are shared on a pro-rata basis between us and the captives, with the captive’s portion of both premiums and losses typically ranging from 25% to 50%. Effective January 1, 2009, we are no longer ceding new business under excess of loss reinsurance treaties with lender captive reinsurers. Loans reinsured on an excess of loss basis through December 31, 2008 will run off pursuant to the terms of the particular captive arrangement. New business remains eligible to be ceded under quota share reinsurance arrangements, limited to a 25% cede rate. During 2009 through 2011, many of our captive arrangements have either been terminated or placed into run-off.
Generally, reinsurance recoverables on primary loss reserves, paid losses and prepaid reinsurance premiums are supported by trust funds or letters of credit. As such, we have not established an allowance against these recoverables.
(1) In 2011, includes lump sum payments of $8.2 million from our pension plan to eligible participants, which were former employees with vested benefits of $50 thousand or less. Additional former employees may elect this option in 2012.
To determine the fair value of securities in Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, independent pricing sources have been utilized. One price is provided per security based on observable market data. To ensure securities are appropriately classified in the fair value hierarchy, we review the pricing techniques and methodologies of the independent pricing sources and believe that their policies adequately consider market activity, either based on specific transactions for the issue valued or based on modeling of securities with similar credit quality, duration, yield and structure that were recently traded. A variety of inputs are utilized including benchmark yields, reported trades, non-binding broker/dealer quotes, issuer spreads, two sided markets, benchmark securities, bids, offers and reference data including market research publications. Inputs may be weighted differently for any security, and not all inputs are used for each security evaluation. Market indicators, industry and economic events are also considered. This information is evaluated using a multidimensional pricing model. In addition, on a quarterly basis, we perform quality controls over values received from the pricing source (the “Trustee”) which include comparing values to other independent pricing sources. In addition, we review annually the Trustee’s auditor’s report on internal controls in order to determine that their controls around valuing securities are operating effectively. We have not made any adjustments to the prices obtained from the independent sources.
The primary focus in developing asset allocation ranges for the portfolio is the assessment of the portfolio's investment objectives and the level of risk that is acceptable to obtain those objectives. To achieve these goals the minimum and maximum allocation ranges for fixed income securities and equity securities are:
The following tables show the estimated future contributions and estimated future benefit payments.
Net deferred tax assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 are as follows:
The following summarizes the components of the provision for (benefit from) income taxes:
The IRS is currently conducting an examination of our federal income tax returns for the years 2008 and 2009, which is scheduled to be completed in 2012. The adjustments that are currently proposed by the IRS are temporary in nature and would have no material effect on the financial statements.
The total amount of the unrecognized tax benefits that would affect our effective tax rate is $97.5 million. We recognize interest accrued and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in income taxes. During 2011, we recognized $0.8 million in interest. As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, we had $26.7 million and $25.9 million of accrued interest related to uncertain tax positions, respectively. The statute of limitations related to the consolidated federal income tax return is closed for all years prior to 2000. Although the IRS is reconsidering the terms of our settlement agreement with them, as discussed above, if approved our total amount of unrecognized tax benefits would be reduced by $104.0 million during 2012, while after taking into account prior payments and the effect of available NOL carrybacks, any net cash outflows would approximate $23 million.
Under the Agreement each outstanding share of our Common Stock is accompanied by one Right. The Distribution Date occurs on the earlier of ten days after a public announcement that a person has become an Acquiring Person, or ten business days after a person announces or begins a tender offer in which consummation of such offer would result in a person becoming an Acquiring Person. An Acquiring Person is any person that becomes, by itself or together with its affiliates and associates, a beneficial owner of 5% or more of the shares of our Common Stock then outstanding, but excludes, among others, certain exempt and grandfathered persons as defined in the Agreement. The Rights are not exercisable until the Distribution Date. Each Right will initially entitle shareholders to buy one-half of one share of our Common Stock at a Purchase Price of $25 per full share (equivalent to $12.50 for each one-half share), subject to adjustment. Each exercisable Right (subject to certain limitations) will entitle its holder to purchase, at the Rights’ then-current Purchase Price, a number of our shares of Common Stock (or if after the Shares Acquisition Date, we are acquired in a business combination, common shares of the acquiror) having a market value at the time equal to twice the Purchase Price. The Rights will expire on August 17, 2012, or earlier as described in the Agreement. The Rights are redeemable at a price of $0.001 per Right at any time prior to the time a person becomes an Acquiring Person. Other than certain amendments, the Board of Directors may amend the Rights in any respect without the consent of the holders of the Rights.
The senior notes, convertible senior notes and convertible debentures, discussed in Note 8 - “Debt”, are obligations of MGIC Investment Corporation, our holding company, and not of its subsidiaries. The payment of dividends from our insurance subsidiaries, which prior to raising capital in the public markets in 2008 and 2010 had been the principal source of our holding company cash inflow, is restricted by insurance regulation. MGIC is the principal source of dividend-paying capacity. In 2009 through 2011, MGIC has not paid any dividends to our holding company. In 2012, MGIC and our other insurance subsidiaries cannot pay any dividends to our holding company without approval from the OCI.
Under statutory accounting practices, mortgage guaranty insurance companies are required to maintain contingency loss reserves equal to 50% of premiums earned. Such amounts cannot be withdrawn for a period of ten years except as permitted by insurance regulations. With regulatory approval a mortgage guaranty insurance company may make early withdrawals from the contingency reserve when incurred losses exceed 35% of net premiums earned in a calendar year. Changes in contingency loss reserves impact the statutory statement of operations. Contingency loss reserves are not reflected as liabilities under GAAP and changes in contingency loss reserves do not impact GAAP operations. A premium deficiency reserve that may be recorded on a GAAP basis when present value of expected future losses and expenses exceeds the present value of expected future premiums and already established loss reserves, may not be recorded on a statutory basis if the present value of expected future premiums and already established loss reserves and statutory contingency reserves, exceeds the present value of expected future losses and expenses. On a GAAP basis, when calculating a premium deficiency reserve policies are grouped based on how they are acquired, serviced and measured. On a statutory basis, a premium deficiency reserve is calculated on all policies in force.
At December 31, 2011, MGIC exceeded MPP by approximately $185 million, and we exceeded MPP by approximately $249 million on a combined basis. At December 31, 2011 MGIC’s risk-to-capital was 20.3 to 1 and was 22.2 to 1 on a combined basis. See Note 1 - “Nature of business - Capital” for a discussion of our capital plans.
We have a stock incentive plan that was adopted in May 2011. When the 2011 plan was adopted, no further awards could be made under our previous 2002 plan. All share based compensation granted in 2011 was granted under the 2002 plan prior to the adoption of the 2011 plan. The purpose of the 2011 plan is to motivate and incent performance by and to retain the services of, key employees and non-employee directors through receipt of equity-based and other incentive awards under the plan. The maximum number of shares of stock that can be awarded under the 2011 plan is 7.0 million. Awards issued under the plan that are subsequently forfeited will not count against the limit on the maximum number of shares that may be issued under the plan. In addition, shares used for income tax withholding or used for payment of the exercise price of an option will not be counted against such limit. The plan provides for the award of stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock and restricted stock units, as well as cash incentive awards. No awards may be granted after May 5, 2021 under the 2011 plan. The exercise price of options is the closing price of the common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on the date of grant. The vesting provisions of options, restricted stock and restricted stock units are determined at the time of grant. Shares issued under the 2011 plan are treasury shares if available, otherwise they will be newly issued shares. Treasury shares will continue to be issued for nonvested unit awards under the 2002 plan.
The compensation cost that has been charged against income for the share-based plans was $12.1 million, $13.7 million and $15.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The related income tax benefit, before valuation allowance, recognized for the share-based compensation plans was $4.2 million, $1.5 million and $5.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
A summary of option activity in the stock incentive plans during 2011 is as follows:
There were no options granted or exercised in 2011, 2010 or 2009.
The following is a summary of stock options outstanding, all of which are exercisable, at December 31, 2011:
At December 31, 2011, the 2.9 million shares of restricted stock outstanding consisted of 2.3 million shares that are subject to performance conditions (“performance shares”) and 0.6 million shares that are subject only to service conditions (“time vested shares”). The weighted-average grant date fair value of restricted stock granted during 2010 and 2009 was $6.82 and $3.11, respectively. The fair value of restricted stock granted is the closing price of the common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on the date of grant. The total fair value of restricted stock vested during 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $14.9 million, $8.5 million and $1.3 million, respectively.
During 2011, we also granted 449,350 shares that will be settled as cash payments over the vesting period under the 2002 stock incentive plan. The grant date fair value of these restricted share units was $8.94 in 2011. During 2011, 5,400 shares of this grant were forfeited. As of December 31, 2011, there was $1.0 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to nonvested shares under this grant. The unrecognized compensation cost associated with this grant is expected to be recognized over a period of 2.1 years.
At December 31, 2011, 7.0 million shares were available for future grant under the 2011 stock incentive plan.
We lease certain office space as well as data processing equipment and autos under operating leases that expire during the next six years. Generally, rental payments are fixed.
Total rental expense under operating leases was $5.4 million, $6.3 million and $6.8 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
Consumers are bringing a growing number of 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. On December 11, 2011, seven mortgage insurers (including MGIC) and a large mortgage lender (which was the named plaintiffs’ lender) were named as defendants in a complaint, alleged to be a class action, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On December 30, 2011, a similar complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by different plaintiffs against the same seven mortgage insurers and another large lender. The complaints in both cases alleged various causes of action related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of these two mortgage lenders, including that the defendants violated RESPA by paying excessive premiums to the lenders’ captive reinsurer in relation to the risk assumed by that captive. The named plaintiffs’ loans were not insured by MGIC. MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the lawsuits. 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.
Various regulators, including the CFPB, state insurance commissioners and state attorneys general may bring actions seeking various forms of relief, including civil penalties and injunctions against violations of RESPA. The insurance law provisions of many states prohibit paying for the referral of insurance business and provide various mechanisms to enforce this prohibition. While we believe our captive reinsurance arrangements are in conformity with applicable laws and regulations, it is not possible to predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of any such reviews or investigations nor is it possible to predict their effect on us or the mortgage insurance industry.
In September 2010, a housing discrimination complaint was filed against MGIC with HUD alleging that MGIC violated the Fair Housing Act and discriminated against the complainant on the basis of her sex and familial status when MGIC underwrote her loan for mortgage insurance. In May 2011, HUD commenced an administrative action against MGIC and two of its employees, seeking, among other relief, aggregate fines of $48,000. The HUD complainant elected to have charges in the administrative action proceed in federal court and in July 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against MGIC and these employees on behalf of the complainant. The complaint seeks redress for the alleged housing discrimination, including compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged victims and a civil penalty payable to the United States. MGIC denies that any unlawful discrimination occurred and disputes many of the allegations in the complaint.
In October 2010, a separate purported class action lawsuit was filed against MGIC by the HUD complainant in the same District Court in which the DOJ action is pending alleging that MGIC discriminated against her on the basis of her sex and familial status when MGIC underwrote her loan for mortgage insurance. In May 2011, the District Court granted MGIC’s motion to dismiss with respect to all claims except certain Fair Housing Act claims.
MGIC intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in both the class action lawsuit and the DOJ lawsuit. Based on the facts known at this time, we do not foresee the ultimate resolution of these legal proceedings having a material adverse effect on us.
Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed against us and several of our executive officers were consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees’ Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) in June 2009. Due in part to its length and structure, it is difficult to summarize briefly the allegations in the Complaint but it appears the allegations are that we and our officers named in the Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about (i) loss development in our insurance in force, and (ii) C-BASS (a former minority-owned, unconsolidated, joint venture investment), including its liquidity. The Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the Complaints’ allegations regarding C-BASS. Our motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted in February 2010. In March 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Attached to this motion was a proposed Amended Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint alleged that we and two of our officers named in the Amended Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing to properly account for our investment in C-BASS. The Amended Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the Amended Complaint’s allegations regarding C-BASS. The purported class period covered by the Amended Complaint began on February 6, 2007 and ended on August 13, 2007. The Amended Complaint sought damages based on purchases of our stock during this time period at prices that were allegedly inflated as a result of the purported violations of federal securities laws. In December 2010, the plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint was denied and the Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. In January 2011, the plaintiffs appealed the February 2010 and December 2010 decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; during oral argument before the Appeals Court regarding the case on January 12, 2012, the plaintiffs confirmed the appeal was limited to issues regarding C-BASS. In June 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court for relief from that court’s judgment of dismissal on the ground of newly discovered evidence consisting of transcripts the plaintiffs obtained of testimony taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its now-terminated investigation regarding C-BASS. We are opposing this motion and the matter is awaiting decision by the District Court. We are unable to predict the outcome of these consolidated cases or estimate our associated expenses or possible losses. Other lawsuits alleging violations of the securities laws could be brought against us.
We understand several law firms have, among other things, issued press releases to the effect that they are investigating us, including whether the fiduciaries of our 401(k) plan breached their fiduciary duties regarding the plan’s investment in or holding of our common stock or whether we breached other legal or fiduciary obligations to our shareholders. We intend to defend vigorously any proceedings that may result from these investigations.
In December 2009, Countrywide filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Francisco against MGIC. This complaint alleges that MGIC has denied, and continues to deny, valid mortgage insurance claims submitted by Countrywide and says it seeks declaratory relief regarding the proper interpretation of the insurance policies at issue. In October 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, to which the case had been removed, entered an order staying the litigation in favor of the arbitration proceeding we commenced against Countrywide in February 2010.
In the arbitration proceeding, we are seeking a determination that MGIC is entitled to rescind coverage on the loans involved in the proceeding. From January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2011, rescissions of Countrywide-related loans mitigated our paid losses on the order of $435 million. This amount is the amount we estimate we would have paid had the loans not been rescinded. On a per loan basis, the average amount that we would have paid had the loans not been rescinded was approximately $72,100. Various materials exchanged by MGIC and Countrywide bring into the dispute loans we did not previously consider to be Countrywide-related and loans on which MGIC rescinded coverage subsequent to those specified at the time MGIC began the proceeding (including loans insured through the bulk channel), and set forth Countrywide’s contention that, in addition to the claim amounts under policies it alleges MGIC has improperly rescinded, Countrywide is entitled to other damages of almost $700 million as well as exemplary damages. Countrywide and MGIC have each selected 12 loans for which a three-member arbitration panel will determine coverage. While the panel’s determination will not be binding on the other loans at issue, the panel will identify the issues for these 24 “bellwether” loans and strive to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law in such a way as to aid the parties to apply them to the other loans at issue. The hearing before the panel on the bellwether loans was scheduled to begin in September 2012, but we and Countrywide have agreed that the parties will take steps to delay the hearing at least 60 days.
In addition to the rescissions at issue with Countrywide, we have a substantial pipeline of claims investigations and pre-rescission rebuttals (including those involving loans related to Countrywide) that we expect will eventually result in future rescissions. For additional information about rescissions as well as rescission settlement agreements, see Note 9 - “Loss reserves.”
In prior periods, the liability associated with premium to be returned on claim payments is included in loss reserves and changes to this estimate affect losses incurred. See Note 3 - “Summary of significant accounting policies - Revenue recognition.”
In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and of cash flows present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of MGIC Investment Corporation and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) at December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2011 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Company’s management is responsible for these financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting appearing under Item 9A. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements and on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our integrated audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audits of the financial statements included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.