The Company provides credit protection products in the United States (“U.S.”) and international public finance (including infrastructure) and structured finance markets. The Company applies its credit underwriting judgment, risk management skills and capital markets experience to offer insurance that protects holders of debt instruments and other monetary obligations from defaults in scheduled payments, including scheduled interest and principal payments. The securities insured by the Company include taxable and tax-exempt obligations issued by U.S. state or municipal governmental authorities, utility districts or facilities; notes or bonds issued to finance international infrastructure projects; and asset-backed securities issued by special purpose entities. The Company markets its credit protection products directly to issuers and underwriters of public finance, infrastructure and structured finance securities as well as to investors in such obligations. The Company guarantees obligations issued in many countries, although its principal focus is on the U.S., as well as Europe and Australia.
This executive summary of management’s discussion and analysis highlights selected information and may not contain all of the information that is important to readers of this Annual Report. For a more detailed description of events, trends and uncertainties, as well as the capital, liquidity, credit, operational and market risks and the critical accounting policies and estimates affecting the Company, this Annual Report should be read in its entirety.
Municipal credits have experienced budgetary stress since the recent credit crisis and the ensuing recession, compounded in many cases by significant unfunded pension and retiree health care liabilities. While revenues at the state level have been rebounding in general, many local governments have continued to face structural deficits as a result of the decline in property taxes. Although the vast majority of municipalities have been taking steps to address their fiscal challenges, a small number have sought bankruptcy protection. This is an area of law that has not been tested due to the relatively low frequency of such cases. The Company has been active with respect to the municipal bankruptcy cases involving Jefferson County, Alabama and the City of Stockton, California. It has also been closely monitoring legal proceedings in other municipal bankruptcy cases
in various states. In addition, the Company has been involved with efforts of the city receiver for the City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to develop and implement a fiscal recovery plan for the city.
The publicity surrounding high-profile defaults, especially those few where bond insurers are paying claims, provides evidence of the value of bond insurance and may stimulate demand, especially at the retail level. New issuance volume in the U.S. public finance market increased in 2012 as interest rates fell to historic lows. Tight credit spreads and low interest rates tend to suppress demand for bond insurance as the potential savings for issuers are diminished and some investors prefer to forgo insurance in favor of greater yield.
The demand for the Company’s insurance has also been negatively affected by the credit spread on AGC, which is a reflection of the risk that investors perceive in the Company, among other factors. The higher the Company's credit spread, the lower the benefit of the Company’s guaranty is to certain investors. If investors view the Company as being only marginally less risky, or perhaps even as risky, as the uninsured security, the coupon on a security insured by the Company may not be much lower, or may be the same as, an uninsured security offered by the same issuer. Accordingly, issuers may be unwilling to pay a premium for the Company to insure their securities if the insurance does not lower the costs of issuance. While AGC's and AGM's credit spreads were lower at December 31, 2012 compared with December 31, 2011, they remained high compared with their pre-2007 credit spreads.
There are several primary drivers of volatility in reported net income or loss that are not necessarily indicative of credit impairment or improvement, or ultimate economic gains or losses: changes in credit spreads of insured credit derivative obligations and financial guaranty variable interest entities' ("FG VIEs") assets and liabilities, changes in the Company's own credit spreads, and changes in risk-free rates used to discount expected losses. Changes in credit spreads have the most significant effect on changes in fair value of credit derivatives and FG VIE assets and liabilities. In addition to these factors, changes in expected losses, the timing of refundings and terminations of financial guaranty insurance contracts, realized gains and losses on the investment portfolio, including other-than-temporary impairments, the effects of large settlements or transactions, and the effects of the Company's various loss mitigation strategies, among other factors, may also have a significant effect on reported net income or loss in a given reporting period.
Net income for 2012 declined to $110 million from $773 million in 2011 due primarily to unrealized losses on credit derivatives, higher loss and loss adjustment expenses and lower net earned premiums. Over the course of 2012, credit spreads on AGC and AGM declined, which resulted in unrealized losses in the credit derivative portfolio, while in 2011, those credit spreads increased, resulting in unrealized gains. In 2012, loss and loss adjustment expenses were higher than 2011 due primarily to losses incurred on Greek sovereign exposures. Net earned premiums declined due to the scheduled amortization of the insured portfolio, offset in part by higher terminations and refundings of insured obligations. Offsetting the decline in net income were changes in fair value of FG VIE assets and liabilities and commutation gains related to the reassumption of previously ceded books of business.
Non-GAAP operating income in 2012 was $535 million, compared with $601 million in 2011. The decline in operating income was primarily driven by losses incurred on Greek exposures and lower credit derivative revenues, offset in part by higher commutation gains. The decline in credit derivative revenues is consistent with expectations as the Company no longer writes financial guaranties in derivative form and this book of business amortizes.
See "-Non-GAAP Financial Measures" for a description of these non-GAAP financial measures.
loss mitigation, including the pursuit of recoveries for breaches of R&W, servicing improvements and the purchase of insured obligations;
The Company continued its risk remediation strategies in 2012, which lowered losses and improved rating agency capital. The following are examples of the strategies employed by the Company.
The quality of servicing of the mortgage loans underlying an RMBS transaction influences collateral performance and ultimately the amount (if any) of the Company's insured losses. The Company has established a group to mitigate RMBS losses by influencing mortgage servicing, including, if possible, causing the transfer of servicing or establishing special servicing arrangements. “Special servicing” is an industry term referencing more intense servicing applied to delinquent loans aimed at
mitigating losses. Special servicing arrangements provide incentives to a servicer to achieve better performance on the mortgage loans it services. As a result of the Company’s efforts, at February 28, 2013 the servicing of approximately $3.0 billion of mortgage loans had been transferred to a new servicer and another $1.7 billion of mortgage loans were subject to special servicing arrangements. The December 31, 2012 net insured par of the transactions subject to a servicing transfer was $2.7 billion and the net insured par of the transactions subject to a special servicing arrangement was $0.9 billion.
Represents 99.8% for 2012, 100% for 2011 and 100% for 2010 of market share of bonds issued with insurance for all periods presented.
U.S. public finance PVP and gross par written have declined over the past two years as a result of record-low bond yields on new issuances, tight credit spreads and uncertainty over financial strength ratings of Assured Guaranty throughout 2011 and 2012. However, the Company's 2012 U.S. public finance premium rates were consistent by sector with rates in 2011 and the average rating of gross par written has remained in the Single-A category. The Company insured a select number of U.S. structured finance transactions in 2012, including a U.S. commercial receivables securitization and a life insurance reserve financing. The Company uses its AGC platform to underwrite new structured finance transactions, while most public finance transactions are written by AGM.
PVP for 2012 includes $22 million in assumed public finance business from Radian, representing the Company's first third party assumed reinsurance treaty written since 2009. On January 24, 2012, the Company announced a three-part agreement with Radian under which it reassumed $12.9 billion of par it had previously ceded to Radian, reinsured approximately $1.8 billion of U.S. public finance par and agreed to acquire MAC. In addition to the Radian reassumption, the Company also reassumed $6.2 billion in par from Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (“Tokio”). The Company recognized $82 million in pre-tax commutation gains as a result of commutation transactions in 2012 and $32 million in 2011. The 2012 commutations resulted in approximately $109 million in additional future premium earnings.
In order to reduce leverage and possibly, rating agency capital charges, the Company has mutually agreed with beneficiaries to terminate selected financial guaranty insurance and credit derivative contracts. In particular, the Company has targeted investment grade securities for which claims are not expected but which carry a disproportionate rating agency capital charge. The Company terminated $4.1 billion in net par in 2012 and $12.8 billion in net par in 2011.
Reflects the unscheduled refunding or early termination of underlying insured obligations.
Excludes $153 million, $75 million and $48 million for 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively, related to consolidated FG VIEs.
2011 compared with 2010: Net earned premiums decreased primarily due to the decline in structured finance scheduled net earned premium as the par outstanding declined, offset in part by an increase in accelerations in 2011. Scheduled net earned premiums in 2011 were consistent with the previously disclosed expected amortization of deferred premium revenue.
2012 compared with 2011: Net investment income increased primarily due to higher income earned on loss mitigation bonds, which the Company generally purchased at a discount and which carry high investment yields. Income earned on the general portfolio excluding loss mitigation bonds declined due to a lower fixed maturity balance and lower reinvestment rates. The overall pre-tax book yield was 3.85% at December 31, 2012 and 4.00% at December 31, 2011, respectively. Excluding bonds purchased or obtained for loss mitigation purposes, pre-tax yield was 3.51% as of December 31, 2012 compared with 3.69% as of December 31, 2011.
Other income is comprised of recurring items such as foreign exchange remeasurement gains and losses, ancillary fees on financial guaranty policies such as commitment, consent and processing fees, and other revenue items on financial guaranty insurance and reinsurance contracts such as commutation gains on re-assumptions of previously ceded business.
The R&W settlement benefit recorded in other income in 2011 represented transactions where the Company had recovered more than its expected lifetime losses due to a negotiated agreement with the R&W provider. Such excess may not be recorded as an offset to loss and LAE under GAAP.
Other operating expenses in 2012 were relatively consistent with 2011. Other operating expenses decreased in 2011 compared to 2010 due primarily to declines in gross compensation expense, offset in part by lower deferral rates. Deferral rates were 6.4% in 2012 compared with 7.3% in 2011, and 9.4% in 2010.
Credits identified as BIG are subjected to further review to determine the probability of a loss. Surveillance personnel then assign each BIG transaction to the appropriate BIG surveillance category based upon whether a lifetime loss is expected and whether a claim has been paid. The Company expects “lifetime losses” on a transaction when the Company believes there is at least a 50% chance that, on a present value basis, it will pay more claims over the life of that transaction than it ultimately will have been reimbursed. For surveillance purposes, the Company calculates present value using a constant discount rate of 5%. (A risk free rate is used for recording of reserves for financial statement purposes.)
· BIG Category 1: Below-investment-grade transactions showing sufficient deterioration to make lifetime losses possible, but for which none are currently expected. Transactions on which claims have been paid but are expected to be fully reimbursed (other than investment grade transactions on which only liquidity claims have been paid) are in this category.
· BIG Category 2: Below-investment-grade transactions for which lifetime losses are expected but for which no claims (other than liquidity claims which is a claim that the Company expects to be reimbursed within one year) have yet been paid.
The Company projects losses on its insured U.S. RMBS on a transaction-by-transaction basis by projecting the performance of the underlying pool of mortgages over time and then applying the structural features (i.e., payment priorities or tranching) of the RMBS to the projected performance of the collateral over time. The resulting projected claim payments or reimbursements are then discounted using risk-free rates. For transactions where the Company projects it will receive recoveries from providers of R&W, it projects the amount of recoveries and either establishes a recovery for claims already paid or reduces its projected claim payments accordingly.
Generally, when mortgage loans are transferred into a securitization, the loan originator(s) and/or sponsor(s) provide R&W, that the loans meet certain characteristics, and a breach of such R&W often requires that the loan be repurchased from the securitization. In many of the transactions the Company insures, it is in a position to enforce these requirements. The Company uses internal resources as well as third party forensic underwriting firms and legal firms to pursue breaches of R&W. If a provider of R&W refuses to honor its repurchase obligations, the Company may choose to initiate litigation. See “-Recovery Litigation” in Note 6, Expected Loss to be Paid, of the Financial Statements and Supplementary Data. In February 2013, the Company was awarded damages plus costs and attorneys' fees, subject to appeal, in its litigation against Flagstar Bank.
The Company's success in pursuing R&W claims against a number of counterparties that provided R&W on a loan by loan basis has permitted the Company to pursue reimbursement agreements with R&W providers. Such agreements provide the Company with many of the benefits of pursuing the R&W claims but without the expense and uncertainty of pursuing the R&W claims on a loan by loan basis. The Company has entered into several such agreements, most notably with Bank of America and Deutsche Bank, and it continues to pursue such agreements with other counterparties as opportunities arise.
The $2.3 billion of payments made or to be made directly to the Company by R&W providers under agreements with the Company includes $1.6 billion that has already been received by the Company, as well as $698 million the Company projects receiving in the future pursuant to such currently existing agreements. Because most of that $698 million is projected to be received through loss-sharing arrangements, the exact amount the Company will receive will depend on actual losses experienced by the covered transactions. This amount is included in the Company's calculated credit for R&W recoveries, described below.
The $557 million paid by R&W providers were paid into the relevant RMBS transactions in accordance with the priority of payments set out in the relevant transaction documents. Because the Company may insure only a portion of the capital structure of a transaction, such payments will not necessarily directly benefit the Company dollar-for-dollar, especially in first lien transactions. However, such payments do reduce collateral pool losses and so usually reduce the Company's expected losses.
Net expected loss to be paid consists primarily of the present value of future: expected claim payments, expected recoveries of excess spread in the transaction structures, cessions to reinsurers, and expected recoveries for breaches of R&W and other loss mitigation strategies. Current risk free rates are used to discount expected losses at the end of each reporting period and therefore changes in such rates from period to period affect the expected loss estimates reported. The effect of changes in discount rates are included in net economic loss development, however, economic loss development attributable to changes in discount rates is not indicative of credit impairment or improvement. Assumptions used in the determination of the net expected loss to be paid such as delinquency, severity, and discount rates and expected timeframes to recovery in the mortgage market were consistent by sector regardless of the accounting model used. The primary drivers of changes in expected loss to be paid are discussed below.
Total economic loss development in 2012 was $438 million ($319 million after tax), which was primarily driven by losses on its troubled European exposures, particularly a $189 million loss in relation to the Company's Greek sovereign bond exposures and loss development on Spanish sub-sovereign exposures, higher U.S. RMBS and U.S. public finance losses, offset in part by positive developments in the TruPS portfolio. Changes in discount rates did not have a significant effect on economic loss development in 2012 as the risk-free rates used to discount expected losses ranged from 0.0% to 3.28% as of December 31, 2012 compared with 0.0% to 3.27% as of December 31, 2011.
in its most optimistic scenario, it reduced by three months the period it assumed it would take the mortgage market to recover; and
Net economic loss development in 2011 was $124 million ($116 million after tax) which was driven primarily by non-U.S. RMBS structured finance and non U.S public finance obligations. In the non U.S. RMBS structured finance portfolio, economic loss development was primarily driven by the decline in risk free rates used to discount expected losses. Loss development in life insurance and film securitizations also contributed to the net loss development, offset in part by positive development in the TruPS portfolio. Economic loss development in the non- U.S. public finance portfolio was comprised mainly of the probability weighted loss estimate on exposures to Greek sovereign debt based on information available at that time. In the U.S. RMBS portfolio, loss development was offset by positive developments in actual and expected recoveries for breaches of R&W. Changes in discount rates had a significant effect on the economic loss development in 2011 as the rates ranged from 0.0% to 3.27% as of December 31, 2011 compared with 0.0% to 5.34% as of December 31, 2010.
based on its observation of increased loss severity rates, the Company increased its projected loss severity rates in various of its first lien scenarios; and
The Company's use of essentially the same methodology and scenarios to project RMBS losses as of December 31, 2011 as at December 31, 2010 was consistent with its view at December 31, 2011 that the housing and mortgage market recovery was occurring at a slower pace than it anticipated at December 31, 2010. Since the Company's projections for each RMBS transaction are based on the delinquency performance of the loans in that individual RMBS transaction, improvement or deterioration in that aspect of a transaction's performance impacts the projections for that transaction.
The following table provides a breakdown of the development and accretion amount in the roll forward of estimated recoveries associated with alleged breaches of R&W.
Net economic loss development in 2010 was $448 million ($313 million after tax) which was driven primarily by U.S RMBS and other structure finance obligations. Changes in discount rates had a significant effect on economic loss development as the risk free rates used to discount losses as of the end of 2010 were 0.0% to 5.34% compared with 0.0% to 5.12% as of the end of 2009.
based on its observation of what appeared to be the beginnings of an improvement in the housing and mortgage markets in the first part of 2010, it adjusted for the second quarter 2010 how its scenarios were run;
then based on its observations in the third and fourth quarters of 2010 that early stage delinquencies had not trended down as much as it had anticipated in the second quarter and its concerns in the fourth quarter about the timing and strength of any recovery in the mortgage and housing markets, it adjusted its probability weightings to reflect a somewhat more pessimistic view; and
based on its observation of increased loss severity rates, the Company increased its projected initial loss severity rates for subprime transactions to 80%.
Expected loss to be paid as discussed above under "Losses in the Insured Portfolio" is an important liquidity measure in that it provides the present value of amounts that the Company expects to pay or recover in future periods. Expected loss to be expensed is important because it presents the Company’s projection of incurred losses that will be recognized in future periods as deferred premium revenue amortizes into income on financial guaranty insurance policies. Expected loss to be paid for FG VIEs pursuant to AGC’s and AGM’s financial guaranty policies is calculated in a manner consistent with financial guaranty insurance contracts, but eliminated in consolidation under GAAP.
The following tables present the loss and LAE recorded in the consolidated statements of operations by sector for non-derivative contracts and the loss expense recorded under non-GAAP operating income respectively. Amounts presented are net of reinsurance.
For each of the three years in period ended December 31, 2012, U.S. RMBS insured transactions have generated the most losses of all the insured sectors. The recovery in the mortgage market has taken longer than originally anticipated, however, the loss development was mitigated by R&W recoveries and negotiated loss sharing agreements as well as other loss mitigation strategies. Changes risk-free rates used to discount losses also contributed to loss expense over the past three years for long-dated transactions, however this component of loss expense does not reflect actual credit impairment or improvement in the period. The public finance sector has also been under increasing stress in the U.S. and abroad, in particular, certain troubled European countries such as Greece where the Company recognized losses.
Net expected loss to be expensed for GAAP reported income is different than non-GAAP operating income by the amount related to consolidated FG VIEs.
Except for net estimated credit impairments (i.e., net expected payments), the unrealized gains and losses on credit derivatives are expected to reduce to zero as the exposure approaches its maturity date. Changes in the fair value of the Company’s credit derivatives that do not reflect actual or expected claims or credit losses have no impact on the Company’s statutory claims paying resources, rating agency capital or regulatory capital positions. Expected losses to be paid in respect of contracts accounted for as credit derivatives are included in the discussion above: “-Losses in the Insured Portfolio.”
The impact of changes in credit spreads will vary based upon the volume, tenor, interest rates, and other market conditions at the time these fair values are determined. In addition, since each transaction has unique collateral and structural terms, the underlying change in fair value of each transaction may vary considerably. The fair value of credit derivative contracts also reflects the change in the Company’s own credit cost based on the price to purchase credit protection on AGC and AGM. The Company determines its own credit risk based on quoted CDS prices traded on the Company at each balance sheet date. Generally, a widening of the CDS prices traded on AGC and AGM has an effect of offsetting unrealized losses that result from widening general market credit spreads, while a narrowing of the CDS prices traded on AGC and AGM has an effect of offsetting unrealized gains that result from narrowing general market credit spreads.
the valuation of the Company’s credit derivative contracts requires the use of models that contain significant, unobservable inputs, and are classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy. See Note 8, Fair Value Measurement, of the Financial Statements and Supplemental Data.
The fair value of the Company's credit derivative contracts represents the difference between the present value of remaining net premiums the Company expects to receive or pay for the credit protection under the contract and the estimated present value of premiums that a financial guarantor of comparable credit-worthiness would hypothetically charge or pay the Company for the same protection. The fair value of the Company's credit derivatives depends on a number of factors including notional amount of the contract, expected term, credit spreads, interest rates, the credit ratings of referenced entities, the Company’s own credit risk and remaining contractual cash flows.
The models used to determine fair value are primarily developed internally based on market conventions for similar transactions that the Company observed in the past. There has been very limited new issuance activity in this market over the past three years and as of December 31, 2012, market prices for the Company’s credit derivative contracts were generally not available. Inputs to the estimate of fair value include various market indices, credit spreads, the Company’s own credit spread, and estimated contractual payments.
Net credit derivative premiums have declined in 2012 due primarily to the decline in the net par outstanding to $70.8 billion at December 31, 2012 from $85.0 billion at December 31, 2011. In years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, CDS contracts totaling $2.3 billion and $11.5 billion in net par were terminated.
For the year ended December 31, 2012, interest expense decreased due to the retirement of the AGUS 8.5% Senior Notes (see Note 2, Business Changes, Risks, Uncertainties and Accounting Developments, of the Financial Statements and Supplementary Data). The following table presents the components of interest expense.
Deferred income tax assets and liabilities are established for the temporary differences between the financial statement carrying amounts and tax bases of assets and liabilities using enacted rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse. Such temporary differences relate principally to unrealized gains and losses on investments and credit derivatives, FG VIE fair value adjustments, loss and LAE reserve, unearned premium reserve and tax attributes for net operating losses, alternative minimum tax (“AMT”) credits and foreign tax credits. As of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had a net deferred income tax asset of $721 million and $804 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2012, the Company has foreign tax credits carried forward of $30 million which expire in 2018 through 2021 and AMT credits of $58 million which do not expire. Foreign tax credits of $22 million are from its acquisition of Assured Guaranty Municipal Holdings Inc. (“AGMH”) on July 1, 2009 (“AGMH Acquisition”), the Internal Revenue Code limits the amount of credits the Company may utilize each year.
U.S tax by election or as a U.S. controlled foreign corporation. For periods subsequent to April 1, 2012, the U.K. corporation tax rate has been reduced to 24%, for the periods April 1, 2011 to April 1, 2012, the U.K. corporation tax rate was 26% resulting in a blended tax rate of 24.5% in 2012 and prior to April 1, 2011, the U.K. corporation rate was 28% resulting in a blended tax rate of 26.5% in 2011. Accordingly, the Company’s overall corporate effective tax rate fluctuates based on the distribution of taxable income across these jurisdictions. 2012 and 2011 had disproportionate losses and income across jurisdictions, offset by tax-exempt interest, and are the primary reasons for the 16.5% and 24.9% effective tax rates, respectively.
The table below presents the effects on reported GAAP income resulting from consolidating these FG VIEs and eliminating their related insurance and investment accounting entries and, in total, represents a difference between GAAP reported net income and non-GAAP operating income attributable to FG VIEs. The consolidation of FG VIEs has a significant effect on net income and shareholder’s equity due to (1) changes in fair value gains (losses) on FG VIE assets and liabilities, (2) the eliminations of premiums and losses related to the AGC and AGM FG VIE liabilities with recourse and (3) the elimination of investment balances related to the Company’s purchase of AGC and AGM insured FG VIE debt. Upon consolidation of a FG VIE, the related insurance and, if applicable, the related investment balances, are considered intercompany transactions and therefore eliminated. See “-Non-GAAP Financial Measures-Operating Income” below.
Fair value gains (losses) on FG VIEs represent the net change in fair value on the consolidated FG VIEs’ assets and liabilities. For year ended December 31, 2012, the Company recorded pre-tax net fair value gains on consolidated FG VIEs of $210 million. The majority of this gain, approximately $166 million, is the result of a R&W settlement with Deutsche Bank that closed in second quarter 2012. While prices continued to appreciate during the period on the Company's FG VIE assets and liabilities, gains in the second half of the year were primarily driven by large principal paydowns made on the Company's FG VIEs.
The following paragraphs define each non-GAAP financial measure and describe why it is useful. A reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measure and the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, if available, is also presented below.
In 2011, a decrease in net earned premiums and premiums received and receivable on credit derivatives were partially offset by a decrease in loss and LAE, lower operating expenses and increased net investment income. Operating income in 2010 included a $56 million tax benefit related to the filing of an amended pre-acquisition tax return of AGMH. (See “-Results of Operations-Provision for Income Tax”)
5) Elimination of the effects of consolidating FG VIEs in order to present all financial guaranty contracts on a more consistent basis of accounting, whether or not GAAP requires consolidation. GAAP requires the Company to consolidate certain VIEs that have issued debt obligations insured by the Company even though the Company does not own such VIEs.
As of December 31, 2012, shareholders’ equity increased to $5.0 billion from December 31, 2011 due primarily to the issuance of common shares, unrealized gains on the investment portfolio and net income, offset in part by share repurchases and dividends. Adjusted book value increased slightly, mainly due to the issuance of common shares, new business, and commutations of previously ceded business, partially offset by economic loss development. Shares outstanding increased by 11.8 million primarily to the issuance of 13.4 million common shares, partially offset by the repurchase of 2.1 million common shares in 2012.
1) Elimination of the effects of consolidating FG VIEs in order to present all financial guaranty contracts on a more consistent basis of accounting, whether or not GAAP requires consolidation. GAAP requires the Company to consolidate certain VIEs that have issued debt obligations insured by the Company even though the Company does not own such VIEs.
Management believes that PVP is a useful measure because it enables the evaluation of the value of new business production for the Company by taking into account the value of estimated future installment premiums on all new contracts underwritten in a reporting period as well as premium supplements and additional installment premium on existing contracts as to which the issuer has the right to call the insured obligation but has not exercised such right, whether in insurance or credit derivative contract form, which GAAP gross premiums written and the net credit derivative premiums received and receivable portion of net realized gains and other settlement on credit derivatives (“Credit Derivative Revenues”) do not adequately measure. PVP in respect of financial guaranty contracts written in a specified period is defined as gross upfront and installment premiums received and the present value of gross estimated future installment premiums, in each case, discounted at 6%. For purposes of the PVP calculation, management discounts estimated future installment premiums on insurance contracts at 6%, while under GAAP, these amounts are discounted at a risk free rate. Additionally, under GAAP, management records future
installment premiums on financial guaranty insurance contracts covering non-homogeneous pools of assets based on the contractual term of the transaction, whereas for PVP purposes, management records an estimate of the future installment premiums the Company expects to receive, which may be based upon a shorter period of time than the contractual term of the transaction. Actual future net earned or written premiums and Credit Derivative Revenues may differ from PVP due to factors including, but not limited to, changes in foreign exchange rates, prepayment speeds, terminations, credit defaults, or other factors that affect par outstanding or the ultimate maturity of an obligation.
The following tables present the insured portfolio by asset class net of cessions to reinsurers. It includes all financial guaranty contracts outstanding as of the dates presented, regardless of the form written (i.e. credit derivative form or traditional financial guaranty insurance form) or the applicable accounting model (i.e. insurance, derivative or VIE consolidation).
Several European countries are experiencing significant economic, fiscal and / or political strains such that the likelihood of default on obligations with a nexus to those countries may be higher than the Company anticipated when such factors did not exist. The Company has identified those European countries where it has exposure and where it believes heightened uncertainties exist to be: Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain (the “Selected European Countries”). The Company selected these European countries based on its view that their credit fundamentals are deteriorating, as well as on published reports identifying countries that may be experiencing reduced demand for their sovereign debt in the current environment. See “-Selected European Countries” below for an explanation of the circumstances in each country leading the Company to select that country for further discussion.
The tables above include the par amount of financial guaranty contracts accounted for as derivatives. The Company’s credit derivative transactions are governed by ISDA documentation, and the Company is required to make a loss payment on them only upon the occurrence of one or more defined credit events with respect to the referenced securities or loans. For those financial guaranty contracts included in the tables above and accounted for as derivatives, the tables below show their fair value, net of reinsurance:
Fair Value Gain (Loss) of Financial Guaranty Contracts Accounted for as Derivatives,
The Company’s commercial receivable transactions included in the exposure tables above are rail car lease transactions and aircraft lease transactions where some of the lessees have a nexus with the Selected European Countries. Like
the pooled corporate transactions, the commercial receivable transactions generally benefit from embedded credit enhancement which allows a transaction a certain level of losses in the underlying collateral without causing the Company to pay a claim.
The table above includes, in the pooled corporate category, exposure from primarily non-U.S. pooled corporate transactions insured by the Company. Many primarily U.S. pooled corporate obligations permit investments of up to 10% or 15% (or occasionally 20%) of the pool in non-U.S. (or non-U.S. or -Canadian) collateral. Given the relatively low level of permitted international investments in these transactions and their generally high current credit quality, they are excluded from the table above.
On December 18, 2012 the Hellenic Republic of Greece was upgraded by S&P from “SD” (selective default) to “B-” reflecting the completion of Greece's distressed buyback. The action also considered the approval by the Eurogroup (the finance ministers of EU member states belonging to the eurozone) of a loan disbursement to Greece under the second economic adjustment program. S&P viewed such action as indicative of the eurozone's determination to restore stability to Greek finances, and to preserve Greece's eurozone membership. Moody’s rates Greece at "C", which is the lowest rating on Moody’s rating scale. Despite the exchange, which substantially lowered Greece’s debt burden, the country still faces a precarious fiscal position and generally uncertain economic prospects. As of December 31, 2012 the Company no longer had any direct economic exposure to Greece, although it does still have small, indirect exposures as described above under "Indirect Exposure to Selected European Countries".
On November 23, 2012 S&P downgraded the Republic of Hungary's rating from “BB+” to “BB” given the continued weakening of the predictability of the country's policy framework, which could affect its medium-term growth prospects. Moody's rates Hungary at “Ba1”. In October 2008 Hungary requested and later received financial assistance from the EU and the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”). Hungary again requested financial assistance in November 2011, with a potential second financial package currently being negotiated. The Company’s sub-sovereign exposure to Hungarian credits includes an infrastructure financing dependent on payments by government agencies. The Company rates this exposure ($396 million net par) below investment grade. The Company is closely monitoring developments with respect to the ability and willingness of these entities to meet their payment obligations. The Company’s non-sovereign exposure to Hungary comprises primarily covered mortgage bonds issued by Hungarian banks. The Company rates the covered bonds ($220 million net par) below investment grade.
The Kingdom of Spain's financial profile and credit ratings have deteriorated over the past few years, partly as a result of large borrowing needs in the context of a challenging funding environment. The weakening of the country's real estate sector has resulted in the deterioration of the banking system's financial profile, in particular that of the savings and loans. The regional finances are also a source of concern, given the fiscal slippage exhibited by some of the regions. The Kingdom of Spain was downgraded by S&P on October 10, 2012 to “BBB-” from “BBB+” and by Moody’s on June 13, 2012 to “Baa3” from “A3”. The September 6, 2012 announcement of a European Central Bank program to purchase unlimited amounts of secondary market debt of euro area sovereigns that apply for a full macroeconomic adjustment or precautionary program from the EFSF/ESM has helped in the reduction of Spanish sovereign bond yields. The Company’s direct exposure to Spanish credits includes infrastructure financings dependent on payments by sub-sovereigns and government agencies, financings dependent on lease and other payments by sub-sovereigns and government agencies, and an issuance by a regulated utility. The Company rates most ($419 million aggregate net par) of its exposure to sovereign credits in Spain below investment grade. The Company is closely monitoring developments with respect to the ability and willingness of these entities to meet their payment obligations.
The Republic of Portugal is rated “BB” and “Ba3” by S&P and Moody's, respectively. Over the past few years, the Republic of Portugal’s economy and credit ratings have been adversely affected by fiscal imbalances, high indebtedness and the difficult macroeconomic situation generally facing the countries in the euro area. In order to stabilize its debt position, in April 2011 Portugal requested and subsequently received financial assistance from the EU and the IMF. In return, Portugal agreed to a set of deficit reduction and debt targets. The meeting of these targets will likely represent a significant burden on the Portuguese economy in an environment of slow economic activity and volatile bank and sovereign credit markets. Yields on Portuguese sovereign debt have been on a declining trend the last few months. The Company’s exposure to Portuguese credits includes infrastructure financings dependent on payments by sub-sovereigns and government agencies and financings dependent on lease payments by sub-sovereigns and government agencies. The Company rates four of these transactions ($121 million aggregate net par) below investment grade. The Company is closely monitoring developments with respect to the ability and willingness of these entities to meet their payment obligations.
The Republic of Ireland, currently rated “BBB+” and “Ba1” by S&P and Moody’s, respectively, has been adversely affected over the past few years by the weakening global economic environment and the need to provide wide-ranging support to its banking sector, which resulted in a rapid deterioration of the country’s public finances. In November 2010, the Republic of Ireland applied for and subsequently received a financial assistance package from the EU and the IMF. The package included an allocation to support the Irish banking system. Ireland’s fiscal consolidation plan is being implemented in the context of slow economic growth and restricted availability of credit. The Company’s exposure to Irish credits includes exposure in a pool of infrastructure financings dependent on payments by a sub-sovereign and mortgage reinsurance on a pool of Irish residential mortgages originated in 2004-2006 left from its legacy mortgage reinsurance business. Only $7 million of the Company’s exposure to Ireland is below investment grade, and it is indirect in non-sovereign pooled corporate transactions.
When the Company directly insures an obligation, it assigns the obligation to a geographic location or locations based on its view of the geographic location of the risk. For most exposures this can be a relatively straight-forward determination as, for example, a debt issue supported by availability payments for a toll road in a particular country. The Company may also assign portions of a risk to more than one geographic location as it has, for example, in a residential mortgage backed security backed by residential mortgage loans in both Germany and Italy. The Company may also have exposures to the Selected European Countries in business assumed from other monoline insurance companies. See Note 14, Reinsurance and Other
Monoline Exposure, of the Financial Statements and Supplementary Data. In the case of assumed business, the Company depends upon geographic information provided by the primary insurer.
The Company seeks broad coverage of the market by insuring and reinsuring small and large issues alike. The following table sets forth the distribution of the Company's portfolio as of December 31, 2012 by original size of the Company's exposure:
Includes $3,928 million in ceded par outstanding related to insured credit derivatives.
The Company entered into an agreement with Radian on January 24, 2012. See “-Key Business Strategies-New Business Development and Commutations.”
MBIA Inc. includes various subsidiaries which are rated B, BBB by S&P and Caa2, B3, Baa2, WR and NR by Moody’s.
In accordance with statutory accounting requirements and U.S. insurance laws and regulations, in order for the Company to receive credit for liabilities ceded to reinsurers domiciled outside of the U.S., such reinsurers must secure their liabilities to the Company. All of the unauthorized reinsurers in the table above post collateral for the benefit of the Company in
an amount at least equal to the sum of their ceded unearned premium reserve, loss reserves and contingency reserves all calculated on a statutory basis of accounting. CIFG and Radian are authorized reinsurers. Radian's collateral equals or exceeds its ceded statutory loss reserves and CIFG's collateral covers a substantial portion of its ceded statutory loss reserves. Collateral may be in the form of letters of credit or trust accounts. The total collateral posted by all non-affiliated reinsurers as of December 31, 2012 is approximately $999 million.
The tables below provide information on the risk ratings and certain other risk characteristics of the Company’s financial guaranty insurance and credit derivative RMBS exposures as of December 31, 2012. U.S. RMBS exposures represent 3.4% of the total net par outstanding and BIG U.S. RMBS represent 45% of total BIG net par outstanding. The tables presented provide information with respect to the underlying performance indicators of this book of business. See Note 6, Expected Loss to be Paid, of the Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, for a discussion of expected losses to be paid on U.S. RMBS exposures.
Pool factor in the following tables is the percentage of the current collateral balance divided by the original collateral balance of the transactions at inception.
Distribution of U.S. RMBS by Year Insured and Type of Exposure as of December 31, 2012
Cumulative Losses and 60+ Day Delinquencies as of December 31, 2012
The Company anticipates that for the next twelve months, amounts paid by AGL’s operating subsidiaries as dividends will be a major source of its liquidity. It is possible that in the future, AGL or its subsidiaries may need to seek additional external debt or equity financing in order to meet their obligations. External sources of financing may or may not be available to the Company, and if available, the cost of such financing may not be acceptable to the Company. As of December 31, 2012, AGL had $40 million in cash and short term investments and $205 million in fixed maturity securities with weighted average duration of 1.1 years. AGUS and AGMH had a total of $15 million in cash and short term investments and $31 million in fixed maturity securities with weighted average duration of 3.0 years. See also "-Insurance Company Regulatory Restrictions" below.
Management believes that its subsidiaries’ liquidity needs for the next twelve months can be met from current cash, short-term investments and operating cash flow, including premium collections and coupon payments as well as scheduled maturities and paydowns from their respective investment portfolios. The Company intends to hold and has the ability to hold temporarily impaired debt securities until the date of anticipated recovery.
Insurance policies issued provide, in general, that payments of principal, interest and other amounts insured may not be accelerated by the holder of the obligation. Amounts paid by the Company therefore are typically in accordance with the obligation’s original payment schedule, unless the Company accelerates such payment schedule, at its sole option. CDS may provide for acceleration of amounts due upon the occurrence of certain credit events, subject to single-risk limits specified in the insurance laws of the State of New York (the “New York Insurance Law”). These constraints prohibit or limit acceleration of certain claims according to Article 69 of the New York Insurance Law and serve to reduce the Company’s liquidity requirements.
Includes $38 million recovered and $200 million and $143 million paid for consolidated FG VIEs for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
Under Maryland’s insurance law, AGC may pay dividends in any twelve-month period in an aggregate amount not exceeding the lesser of (a) 10% of policyholders’ surplus or (b) net investment income at the preceding December 31 (including net investment income that has not already been paid out as dividends for the three calendar years prior to the preceding calendar year) with notice to, but without prior approval of, the Maryland Commissioner of Insurance. As of December 31, 2012, the amount available for distribution from AGC during 2012 with notice to, but without prior approval of, the Maryland Commissioner of Insurance is approximately $91 million.
Under the New York Insurance Law, AGM may pay dividends out of earned surplus, provided that, together with all dividends declared or distributed by AGM during the preceding 12 months, the dividends do not exceed the lesser of (a) 10% of policyholders’ surplus as of its last statement filed with the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York (the “New York Superintendent”) or (b) adjusted net investment income (net investment income at the preceding December 31 plus net investment income that has not already been paid out as dividends for the three calendar years prior to the preceding calendar year) during this period. Based on AGM’s statutory statements to be filed for the year ended December 31, 2012, the maximum amount available for payment of dividends by AGM without regulatory approval over the 12 months following December 31, 2012, is approximately $178 million. In connection with Assured Guaranty’s acquisition of AGMH, Assured Guaranty agreed with Dexia that, until July 1, 2012, AGM would not pay dividends in excess of 125% of AGMH’s annual debt service and unless it was rated at least AA- by S&P and Aa3 by Moody's. While this covenant was in effect, it constituted a limitation on AGM’s ability to pay dividends that was more restrictive than the statutory limitation.
AGL and its subsidiaries are party to various lease agreements. The principal executive offices of AGL and AG Re consist of approximately 8,250 square feet of office space located in Hamilton, Bermuda. The lease for this space expires in April 2015.
The Company's primary lease for the principal place of business of AGM, AGC and its other U.S. based subsidiaries in New York City expires in April 2026. In addition, the Company and its subsidiaries lease additional office space under non-cancelable operating leases, which expire at various dates through 2016. Prior to the AGMH Acquisition, the Company had entered into a five year lease agreement in New York City, however, as a result of the AGMH Acquisition, the Company decided not to occupy this office space and subleased it to two tenants for total minimum annual payments of approximately $4 million until October 2013. See “-Contractual Obligations” for lease payments due by period. Rent expense was $10.0 million in 2012, $10.7 million in 2011 and $11.4 million in 2010.
The principal of and interest paid on long-term debt issued by AGUS and AGMH were as follows:
(1) On June 1, 2012, AGUS retired all of the 8.5% Senior Notes. See Note 2, Business Changes, Risks, Uncertainties and Accounting Developments, of the Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
Principal amounts vary from carrying amounts due primarily to acquisition method fair value adjustments at the Acquisition Date, which are accreted or amortized into interest expense over the remaining terms of these obligations.
Junior Subordinated Debentures. On November 22, 2006, AGMH issued $300 million face amount of Junior Subordinated Debentures with a scheduled maturity date of December 15, 2036 and a final repayment date of December 15, 2066. The final repayment date of December 15, 2066 may be automatically extended up to four times in five-year increments provided certain conditions are met. The debentures are redeemable, in whole or in part, at any time prior to December 15, 2036 at their principal amount plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption or, if greater, the make-whole redemption price. Interest on the debentures will accrue from November 22, 2006 to December 15, 2036 at the annual rate of 6.40%. If any amount of the debentures remains outstanding after December 15, 2036, then the principal amount of the outstanding debentures will bear interest at a floating interest rate equal to one-month London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") plus 2.215% until repaid. AGMH may elect at one or more times to defer payment of interest on the debentures for one or more consecutive interest periods that do not exceed ten years. In connection with the completion of this offering, AGMH entered into a replacement capital covenant for the benefit of persons that buy, hold or sell a specified series of AGMH long-term indebtedness ranking senior to the debentures. Under the covenant, the debentures will not be repaid, redeemed, repurchased or defeased by AGMH or any of its subsidiaries on or before the date that is twenty years prior to the final repayment date, except to the extent that AGMH has received proceeds from the sale of replacement capital securities. The proceeds from this offering were used to pay a dividend to the shareholders of AGMH.
Notes Payable represent debt, issued by special purpose entities consolidated by AGM, to the former AGMH subsidiaries that conducted AGMH’s Financial Products Business (the “Financial Products Companies”) transferred to Dexia Holdings prior to the AGMH Acquisition. The funds borrowed were used to finance the purchase of the underlying obligations of AGM-insured obligations which had breached triggers allowing AGM to exercise its right to accelerate payment of a claim in order to mitigate loss. The assets purchased are classified as assets acquired in refinancing transactions and recorded in “other invested assets.” The term of the notes payable matches the terms of the assets.
One event that may lead to an early termination of a lease is the downgrade of AGM, as the strip coverage provider, or the downgrade of the equity payment undertaker within the transaction, in each case, generally to a financial strength rating below double-A. Upon such downgrade, the tax-exempt entity is generally obligated to find a replacement credit enhancer within a specified period of time; failure to find a replacement could result in a lease default, and failure to cure the default within a specified period of time could lead to an early termination of the lease and a demand by the lessor for a termination payment from the tax-exempt entity. However, even in the event of an early termination of the lease, there would not necessarily be an automatic draw on AGM’s policy, as this would only occur to the extent the tax-exempt entity does not make the required termination payment.
As a result of the January 2013 Moody's downgrade of AGM, all the leveraged lease transactions in which AGM acts as strip coverage provider are currently breaching a ratings trigger related to AGM. If early termination of the leases were to occur and the tax-exempt entities do not make the required early termination payments, then AGM would be exposed to possible liquidity claims on gross exposure of approximately $1.7 billion as of December 31, 2012. To date, none of the leveraged lease transactions that involve AGM has experienced an early termination due to a lease default and a claim on the AGM guaranty. It is difficult to determine the probability that the Company will have to pay strip provider claims or the likely aggregate amount of such claims. At December 31, 2012, approximately $947 million of cumulative strip par exposure had been terminated since 2008 on a consensual basis. The consensual terminations have resulted in no claims on AGM.
On July 1, 2009, AGM and Dexia Crédit Local S.A. (“DCL”), acting through its New York Branch (“Dexia Crédit Local (NY)”), entered into a credit facility (the “Strip Coverage Facility”). Under the Strip Coverage Facility, Dexia Crédit Local (NY) agreed to make loans to AGM to finance all draws made by lessors on AGM strip policies that were outstanding as of November 13, 2008, up to the commitment amount. The commitment amount of the Strip Coverage Facility was $1 billion at closing of the AGMH Acquisition but is scheduled to amortize over time. As of December 31, 2012, the maximum commitment amount of the Strip Coverage Facility has amortized to $960 million. It may also be reduced in 2014 to $750 million, if AGM does not have a specified consolidated net worth at that time.
The Strip Coverage Facility’s financial covenants require that AGM and its subsidiaries maintain a maximum debt-to-capital ratio of 30% and maintain a minimum net worth of 75% of consolidated net worth as of July 1, 2009, plus, starting July 1, 2014, (i) 25% of the aggregate consolidated net income (or loss) for the period beginning July 1, 2009 and ending on June 30, 2014 or, (2) zero, if the commitment amount has been reduced to $750 million as described above. The Company is in compliance with all financial covenants as of December 31, 2012.
The Put Agreements have no scheduled termination date or maturity. However, each Put Agreement will terminate if (subject to certain grace periods) (1) AGC fails to pay the put premium as required, (2) AGC elects to have the AGC Preferred Stock bear a fixed rate dividend (a “Fixed Rate Distribution Event”), (3) AGC fails to pay dividends on the AGC Preferred Stock, or the Custodial Trust’s fees and expenses for the related period, (4) AGC fails to pay the redemption price of the AGC Preferred Stock, (5) the face amount of a Custodial Trust’s CCS Securities is less than $20 million, (6) AGC terminates the Put Agreement, or (7) a decree of judicial dissolution of the Custodial Trust is entered. If, as a result of AGC’s failure to pay the put premium, the Custodial Trust is liquidated, AGC will be required to pay a termination payment, which will in turn be distributed to the holders of the AGC CCS Securities. The termination payment will be at a rate equal to 1.10% per annum of the amount invested in Eligible Assets calculated from the date of the failure to pay the put premium through the end of the applicable period. As of December 31, 2012 the put option had not been exercised.
AGC Preferred Stock. The dividend rate on the AGC Preferred Stock is determined pursuant to the same auction process applicable to distributions on the AGC CCS Securities. However, if a Fixed Rate Distribution Event occurs, the distribution rate on the AGC Preferred Stock will be the fixed rate equivalent of one-month LIBOR plus 2.50%. For these purposes, a “Fixed Rate Distribution Event” will occur when AGC Preferred Stock is outstanding, if (subject to certain grace periods): (1) AGC elects to have the AGC Preferred Stock bear dividends at a fixed rate, (2) AGC does not pay dividends on the AGC Preferred Stock for the related distribution period or (3) AGC does pay the fees and expenses of the Custodial Trust for the related distribution period. During the period in which AGC Preferred Stock is held by a Custodial Trust and unless a Fixed Rate Distribution Event has occurred, dividends will be paid every 49 days. Following a Fixed Rate Distribution Event, dividends will be paid every 90 days.
Financial guaranty claim payments represent estimated undiscounted expected cash outflows under direct and assumed financial guaranty contracts, whether accounted for as insurance or credit derivatives, including claim payments under contracts in consolidated FG VIEs. The amounts presented are not reduced for cessions under reinsurance contracts. Amounts include any benefit anticipated from excess spreads within the contracts but do not reflect any benefit for recoveries under breaches of R&W.
The Company’s principal objectives in managing its investment portfolio are to preserve the highest possible ratings for each operating company; to manage investment risk within the context of the underlying portfolio of insurance risk; to maintain sufficient liquidity to cover unexpected stress in the insurance portfolio; and to maximize after-tax net investment income.
The Company’s fixed maturity securities and short-term investments had a duration of 4.3 years as of December 31, 2012 and 4.7 years as of December 31, 2011. Generally, the Company’s fixed maturity securities are designated as available-for-sale. Fixed maturity securities designated as available for sale are reported at their fair value, and the change in fair value is reported as part of AOCI except for the credit component of the unrealized loss for securities deemed to be OTTI. If management believes the decline in fair value is “other-than-temporary,” the Company writes down the carrying value of the investment and records a realized loss in the consolidated statements of operations for an amount equal to the credit component of the unrealized loss.
The following tables summarize, for all fixed maturity securities in an unrealized loss position as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the aggregate fair value and gross unrealized loss by length of time the amounts have continuously been in an unrealized loss position.
The amortized cost and estimated fair value of the Company’s available-for-sale fixed maturity securities, by contractual maturity, are shown below. Expected maturities will differ from contractual maturities because borrowers may have the right to call or prepay obligations with or without call or prepayment penalties.
The following table summarizes the ratings distributions of the Company’s investment portfolio as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. Ratings reflect the lower of the Moody’s and S&P classifications, except for bonds purchased for loss mitigation or risk management strategies, which use Assured Guaranty’s internal ratings classifications.
Includes securities purchased or obtained as part of loss mitigation or other risk management strategies of $1,160 million in par with carrying value of $556 million or 5.5% of fixed maturity securities as of December 31, 2012 and of $924 million in par with carrying value of $378 million or 3.7% of fixed maturity securities as of December 31, 2011.
Under the terms of certain credit derivative contracts, the Company has obtained the obligations referenced in the transactions and recorded such assets in fixed maturity securities in the consolidated balance sheets. Such amounts totaled $200 million, representing $265 million in par.
The following table presents the fair value of securities with third-party guaranties.
99% of these securities had investment grade ratings based on the lower of Moody’s and S&P.
In the third quarter of 2010, as part of loss mitigation efforts under a CDS contract insured by the Company, the Company acquired a 50% interest in Portfolio Funding Company LLC I (“PFC”). PFC owns the distribution rights of a motion picture film library. The Company accounts for its interest in PFC as an equity investment. The Company’s equity earnings in PFC are included in net change in fair value of credit derivatives, as any proceeds from the investment are used to offset the Company’s payments under its CDS contract. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company received $56 million from payments of notes receivable from PFC.
AGMH’s former financial products segment had been in the business of borrowing funds through the issuance of GICs and medium term notes and reinvesting the proceeds in investments that met AGMH’s investment criteria. The financial products business also included the equity payment undertaking agreement portion of the leveraged lease business, as described further below in “-Strip Coverage Facility for the Leveraged Lease Business.”
Until November 2008, AGMH issued, through its financial products business, AGM-insured GICs to municipalities and other market participants. The GICs were issued through AGMH’s non-insurance subsidiaries (the “GIC Issuers”) FSA Capital Management Services LLC, FSA Capital Markets Services LLC and FSA Capital Markets Services (Caymans) Ltd. In return for an initial payment, each GIC entitles its holder to receive the return of the holder’s invested principal plus interest at a specified rate, and to withdraw principal from the GIC as permitted by its terms. AGM insures the GIC Issuer’s payment obligations on all GICs issued by the applicable GIC Issuer.
On June 30, 2009, to support the payment obligations of FSAM and the GIC Issuers, each of Dexia SA and DCL entered into two separate ISDA Master Agreements, each with its associated schedule, confirmation and credit support annex (the “Guaranteed Put Contract” and the “Non-Guaranteed Put Contract” respectively, and collectively, the “Dexia Put Contracts”), the economic effect of which is that Dexia SA and DCL jointly and severally guarantee the scheduled payments of interest and principal in relation to each FSAM asset, as well as any failure of Dexia to provide liquidity or liquid collateral under the committed liquidity lending facilities provided by Dexia affiliates. The Dexia Put Contracts referenced separate portfolios of FSAM assets to which assets owned by FSAM as of September 30, 2008 were allocated, with the less-liquid assets and the assets with the lowest mark-to-market values generally being allocated to the Guaranteed Put Contract.
a writedown or applied loss results in a reduction of the outstanding principal amount, or
To secure the Non-Guaranteed Put Contract, Dexia SA and DCL will, pursuant to the credit support annex thereto, post eligible highly liquid collateral having an aggregate value (subject to agreed reductions) equal to at least the excess of (i) the aggregate principal amount of all outstanding GICs over (ii) the aggregate mark-to-market value of FSAM’s assets. The agreed-to reductions applicable to the value of FSAM assets range from 98% to 82% percent for obligations backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, sovereign obligations of the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, France or Belgium, obligations guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and for mortgage securities issued or guaranteed by U.S. sponsored agencies, and range from 75% to 0% for the other FSAM assets.
As of December 31, 2012, the aggregate accreted GIC balance was approximately $3.6 billion. As of the same date, with respect to the FSAM assets covered by the Non-Guaranteed Put Contract, the aggregate accreted principal balance was approximately $5.4 billion, the aggregate market value was approximately $5.3 billion and the aggregate market value after agreed reductions was approximately $4.1 billion. Cash and net derivative value constituted another $0.2 billion of assets. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2012, the aggregate fair value (after agreed reductions) of the assets supporting the GIC business exceeded the aggregate principal amount of all outstanding GICs and certain other business and hedging costs of the GIC business. Therefore, no posting of collateral was required under the credit support annex applicable to the Non-Guaranteed Put Contract. Under the terms of that credit support annex, the collateral posting is recalculated on a weekly basis according to the formula set forth in the credit support annex, and a collateral posting is required whenever the collateralization levels tested by the formula are not satisfied, subject to a threshold of $5 million.
To provide additional support to the GIC Issuers’ ability to pay their GIC obligations when due, Dexia affiliates have agreed to assume the risk of loss and support the payment obligations of the GIC Subsidiaries in respect of the GICs and the GIC business by providing liquidity commitments to lend against the FSAM assets. The term of the commitments will generally extend until the GICs have been paid in full. The liquidity commitments comprise:
an amended and restated revolving credit agreement (the “Liquidity Facility”) pursuant to which DCL and Belfius (formerly Dexia Bank Belgium SA prior to its sale by Dexia to the Belgian state in October 2011) commit to provide funds to FSAM in an amount up to $8.0 billion, which was further amended on June 15, 2012 reducing the aggregate facility size down from $8.0 billion to $4.7 billion and further reduced to $4.4 billion as of December 31, 2012 as a result of GIC amortization (approximately $1.6 billion of which was outstanding as of December 31, 2012), and
If Dexia or its affiliates do not fulfill the contractual obligations, the Financial Products Companies may not have the financial ability to pay upon the withdrawal of GIC funds or post collateral or make other payments in respect of the GICs, thereby resulting in claims upon the AGM financial guaranty insurance policies. If AGM is required to pay a claim due to a failure of the GIC Subsidiaries to pay amounts in respect of the GICs, AGM is subject to the risk that the GICs will not be paid from funds received from Dexia before it is required to make payment under its financial guaranty policies or that it will not receive the guaranty payment at all.
One situation in which AGM may be required to pay claims in respect of AGMH's former financial products business if Dexia SA and its affiliates do not comply with their obligations is following a downgrade of the financial strength rating of AGM. Most of the GICs insured by AGM allow for the withdrawal of GIC funds in the event of a downgrade of AGM, unless the relevant GIC issuer posts collateral or otherwise enhances its credit. Most GICs insured by AGM allow for the termination of the GIC contract and a withdrawal of GIC funds at the option of the GIC holder in the event of a downgrade of AGM below a specified threshold, generally below A- by S&P or A3 by Moody's, with no right of the GIC issuer to avoid such withdrawal by posting collateral or otherwise enhancing its credit. Each GIC contract stipulates the thresholds below which the GIC issuer must post eligible collateral, along with the types of securities eligible for posting and the collateralization percentage applicable to each security type. These collateralization percentages range from 100% of the GIC balance for cash posted as collateral to, typically, 108% for asset-backed securities. The January 2013 Moody's downgrade of AGM could result in withdrawal of $226.5 million of GIC funds and the need to post collateral on GICs with a balance of $1.9 billion. A further downgrade of AGM to below AA- by S&P could result in an incremental withdrawal or require collateral posting on GICs with a balance of $882.7 million. In the event of such a downgrade, assuming collateral posting on all transactions potentially impacted as a result of any additional rating action, with an average margin of 105%, the market value as of December 31, 2012 that the GIC issuers would be required to post in order to avoid withdrawal of any GIC funds would be $2.9 billion. There are sufficient eligible and liquid assets within the GIC business to satisfy the withdrawal and collateral posting obligations that arose as a result of the January 2013 AGM downgrade and would be expected to arise as a result of potential future rating action.
Under the Strip Coverage Facility entered into in connection with the AGMH Acquisition, Dexia Credit Local (NY) agreed to make loans to AGM to finance all draws made by lessors on certain AGM strip policies, as described further under “Commitments and Contingencies-Recourse Credit Facilities-2009 Strip Coverage Facility” under this Liquidity and Capital Resources section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. AGM may request advances under the Strip Coverage Facility without any explicit limit on the number of loan requests, provided that the aggregate principal amount of loans outstanding as of any date may not initially exceed the commitment amount. The commitment amount:
will be reduced in the amounts and on the dates described in the Strip Coverage Facility either in connection with the scheduled amortization of the commitment amount or to $750 million if AGM’s consolidated net worth as of June 30, 2014 is less than a specified consolidated net worth.
As of December 31, 2012, the maximum commitment amount of the Strip Coverage Facility has amortized to $960 million. As of December 31, 2012, no advances were outstanding under the Strip Coverage Facility.
and will terminate at the earliest of (i) the occurrence of a change of control with respect to AGM, (ii) the reduction of the Commitment Amount to $0 and (iii) January 31, 2042.
Consolidated Statements of Shareholders' Equity for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010
In the past, the Company had sold credit protection by issuing policies that guaranteed payment obligations under credit derivatives. Financial guaranty contracts accounted for as credit derivatives are generally structured such that the circumstances giving rise to the Company’s obligation to make loss payments are similar to those for financial guaranty insurance contracts and only occurs upon one or more defined credit events such as failure to pay or bankruptcy, in each case, as defined within the transaction documents, with respect to one or more third party referenced securities or loans. Financial guaranty contracts accounted for as credit derivatives are primarily comprised of credit default swaps (“CDS”). The Company’s credit derivative transactions are governed by International Swaps and Derivative Association, Inc. (“ISDA”) documentation.
In December 2011, the FASB issued guidance which will require disclosures for entities with financial instruments and derivatives that are either offset on the balance sheet or subject to a master netting arrangement. The guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013. The adoption of this guidance will not impact the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
The chief operating decision maker manages the operations of the Company at a consolidated level. Therefore, segment financial information is no longer disclosed.
The Company revalues assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses denominated in non-U.S. currencies into U.S. dollars using applicable exchange rates. Gains and losses relating to translating foreign functional currency financial statements for U.S. GAAP reporting are included in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) within shareholders' equity. Gains and losses relating to U.S. dollar functional currency transactions, such as those of non-U.S. operations where functional currency is the U.S. dollar, are reported in the consolidated statement of operations.
When a rating agency assigns a public rating to a financial obligation guaranteed by one of AGL’s insurance company subsidiaries, it generally awards that obligation the same rating it has assigned to the financial strength of the AGL subsidiary that provides the guaranty. Investors in products insured by AGL’s insurance company subsidiaries frequently rely on ratings published by nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (“NRSROs”) because such ratings influence the trading value of securities and form the basis for many institutions’ investment guidelines as well as individuals’ bond purchase decisions. Therefore, the Company manages its business with the goal of achieving high financial strength ratings. If the financial strength ratings of the Company’s insurance subsidiaries were reduced below current levels, the Company expects it could have adverse effects on its future business opportunities as well as the premiums it could charge for its insurance policies and consequently, a further downgrade could harm the Company’s new business production and results of operations in a material respect. However, the models used by NRSROs differ, presenting conflicting goals that may make it inefficient or impractical to reach the highest rating level. The models are not fully transparent, contain subjective data (such as assumptions about future market demand for the Company’s products) and change frequently. Ratings reflect only the views of the respective NRSROs and are subject to continuous review and revision or withdrawal at any time.
In addition, AGM may be required to pay claims in respect of AGMH’s former financial products business if Dexia SA (the parent of Dexia Holdings Inc.) and its affiliates do not comply with their obligations following a downgrade of the financial strength rating of AGM. Most of the guaranteed investment contracts ("GICs") insured by AGM allow for the withdrawal of GIC funds in the event of a downgrade of AGM, unless the relevant GIC issuer posts collateral or otherwise enhances its credit. Most GICs insured by AGM allow for the termination of the GIC contract and a withdrawal of GIC funds at the option of the GIC holder in the event of a downgrade of AGM below a specified threshold, generally below A- by S&P or A3 by Moody’s, with no right of the GIC issuer to avoid such withdrawal by posting collateral or otherwise enhancing its credit. Each GIC contract stipulates the thresholds below which the GIC issuer must post eligible collateral, along with the types of securities eligible for posting and the collateralization percentage applicable to each security type. These collateralization percentages range from 100% of the GIC balance for cash posted as collateral to, typically, 108% for asset-backed securities. The January 2013 Moody’s downgrade of AGM could result in withdrawal of $226.5 million of GIC funds and the need to post collateral on GICs with a balance of $1.9 billion. A further downgrade of AGM to below AA- by S&P could result in an incremental withdrawal or require collateral posting on GICs with a balance of $882.7 million. In the event of such a downgrade, assuming collateral posting on all transactions potentially impacted as a result of any additional rating action, with an average margin of 105%, the market value as of December 31, 2012 that the GIC issuers would be required to post in order to avoid withdrawal of any GIC funds would be $2.9 billion. There are sufficient eligible and liquid assets within the GIC business to satisfy the withdrawal and collateral posting obligations that arose as a result of the January 2013 AGM downgrade and would be expected to arise as a result of potential future rating action.
There has been significant GAAP rule making activity which has affected the accounting policies and presentation of the Company’s financial information, particularly:
adoption of a new VIE consolidation standard on January 1, 2010 results in the consolidation of variable interest entities of certain insured transactions (see Note 10, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities),
adoption of new guidance that restricted the types and amounts of financial guaranty insurance acquisition costs that may be deferred, (see Note 5, Financial Guaranty Insurance Acquisition Costs),
There have been four settlements of representation and warranty claims over the past three years. See Note 6, Expected Loss to be Paid.
The Company has entered into several agreements with reinsurers, including assumption and re-assumption agreements with Radian, a re-assumption agreement with Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (“Tokio”) and a $435 million excess of loss reinsurance facility. See Note 14, Reinsurance and Other Monoline Exposures.
On June 1, 2012, the Company completed the remarketing of the $173 million aggregate principal amount of 8.50% Senior Notes issued by AGUS in 2009 that were components of the Company's Equity Units. AGUS purchased all of the Senior Notes in the remarketing at a price of 100% of the aggregate principal amount thereof, and retired all of such notes on June 1, 2012. The proceeds from the remarketing were used to satisfy the obligations of the holders of the Equity Units to purchase AGL common shares pursuant to the forward purchase contracts that were also components of the Equity Units. Accordingly, on June 1, 2012, AGL issued 3.8924 common shares to holders of each $50 Equity Unit, which represented a settlement rate of 3.8685 common shares plus certain anti-dilution adjustments, or an aggregate of 13,428,770 common shares. The Equity Units ceased to exist when the forward purchase contracts were settled on June 1, 2012. See Note 17, Long Term Debt and Credit Facilities.
The Company’s financial guaranty contracts are written in different forms, but collectively are considered financial guaranty contracts. The Company seeks to limit its exposure to losses by underwriting obligations that are investment grade at inception, diversifying its insured portfolio and maintaining rigorous subordination or collateralization requirements on structured finance obligations. The Company also has utilized reinsurance by ceding business to third-party reinsurers. The Company provides financial guaranties with respect to debt obligations of special purpose entities, including VIEs. Some of these VIEs are consolidated as described in Note 10, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities. The outstanding par and Debt Service amounts presented below include outstanding exposures on VIEs whether or not they are consolidated.
In addition to the amounts shown in the table above, the Company’s net mortgage guaranty insurance in force was approximately $154 million as of December 31, 2012. The net mortgage guaranty insurance in force is assumed excess of loss business and comprises $139 million covering loans originated in Ireland and $15 million covering loans originated in the UK.
Beginning in the first quarter 2012, the Company decided to classify those portions of risks benefiting from reimbursement obligations collateralized by eligible assets held in trust in acceptable reimbursement structures as the higher of 'AA' or their current internal rating. As of the third quarter 2012, the Company applied this policy to the Bank of America Agreement and the Deutsche Bank Agreement (see Note 6, Expected Loss to be Paid). The Bank of America Agreement was entered into in April 2011 and the reclassification in the first quarter 2012 resulted in a decrease in BIG net par outstanding as of December 31, 2011 of $1,452 million from that previously reported.
Several European countries are experiencing significant economic, fiscal and/or political strains such that the likelihood of default on obligations with a nexus to those countries may be higher than the Company anticipated when such factors did not exist. The Company is closely monitoring its exposures in Selected European Countries where it believes heightened uncertainties exist. Published reports have identified countries that may be experiencing reduced demand for their sovereign debt in the current environment. The Company selected these European countries based on these reports and its view that their credit fundamentals are deteriorating. The Company’s economic exposure to the Selected European Countries (based on par for financial guaranty contracts and notional amount for financial guaranty contracts accounted for as derivatives) is shown in the following table net of ceded reinsurance.
The Company understands that Moody's recently had undertaken a review of redenomination risk in selected countries in the Eurozone, including some of the Selected European Countries. No redenomination from the Euro to another currency has yet occurred and it may never occur. Therefore, it is not possible to be certain at this point how a redenomination of an issuer’s obligations might be implemented in the future and, in particular, whether any redenomination would extend to the Company's obligations under a related financial guarantee.
Work-out personnel are responsible for managing work-out and loss mitigation situations, working with surveillance and legal personnel (as well as outside vendors) as appropriate. They develop strategies for the Company to enforce its contractual rights and remedies and to mitigate its losses, engage in negotiation discussions with transaction participants and, when necessary, manage (along with legal personnel) the Company's litigation proceedings.
The Company segregates its insured portfolio into investment grade and BIG surveillance categories to facilitate the appropriate allocation of resources to monitoring and loss mitigation efforts and to aid in establishing the appropriate cycle for periodic review for each exposure. BIG exposures include all exposures with internal credit ratings below BBB-. The Company’s internal credit ratings are based on internal assessments of the likelihood of default and loss severity in the event of default. Internal credit ratings are expressed on a ratings scale similar to that used by the rating agencies and are generally reflective of an approach similar to that employed by the rating agencies.
Credits identified as BIG are subjected to further review to determine the probability of a loss (see Note 6, Expected Loss to be Paid). Surveillance personnel then assign each BIG transaction to the appropriate BIG surveillance category based upon whether a lifetime loss is expected and whether a claim has been paid. The Company expects “lifetime losses” on a transaction when the Company believes there is at least a 50% chance that, on a present value basis, it will pay more claims over the life of that transaction than it ultimately will have reimbursed. For surveillance purposes, the Company calculates present value using a constant discount rate of 5%. (A risk-free rate is used for recording of reserves for financial statement purposes.)
More extensive monitoring and intervention is employed for all BIG surveillance categories, with internal credit ratings reviewed quarterly. The three BIG categories are:
BIG Category 2: Below-investment-grade transactions for which lifetime losses are expected but for which no claims (other than liquidity claims which is a claim that the Company expects to be reimbursed within one year) have yet been paid.
BIG Category 3: Below-investment-grade transactions for which lifetime losses are expected and on which claims (other than liquidity claims) have been paid. Transactions remain in this category when claims have been paid and only a recoverable remains.
Accounting for financial guaranty contracts that meet the scope exception under derivative accounting guidance are subject to industry specific guidance which prescribes revenue recognition methodologies. Contracts that meet the definition of a derivative are accounted for at fair value and discussed separately in these financial statements. The accounting for contracts that fall under the financial guaranty insurance definition are consistent whether the contract was written on a direct basis, assumed from another financial guarantor under a reinsurance treaty, ceded to another insurer under a reinsurance treaty, or acquired in a business combination.
For reinsurance assumed contracts, earned premium reported in the Company's consolidated statements of operations are calculated based upon data received from ceding companies, however, some ceding companies report premium data between 30 and 90 days after the end of the reporting period. The Company estimates earned premiums for the lag period. Differences between such estimates and actual amounts are recorded in the period in which the actual amounts are determined. When installment premiums are related to reinsurance assumed contracts, the Company assesses the credit quality and liquidity of the ceding companies and the impact of any potential regulatory constraints to determine the collectability of such amounts.
Excludes $262 million and $274 million deferred premium revenue and $98 million and $133 million contra-paid related to FG VIEs as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.
Represents elimination of deferred premium revenue related to the consolidation of FG VIEs.
Represents elimination of premium receivable related to the consolidation of FG VIEs.
Policy acquisition costs that are directly related and essential to successful insurance contract acquisition are deferred for contracts accounted for as insurance. Amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs includes the accretion of discount on ceding commission income and expense. Acquisition costs associated with derivative contracts are not deferrable.
study to determine which operating costs qualify for deferral. Costs incurred by the insurer for soliciting potential customers, market research, training, administration, unsuccessful acquisition efforts, and product development as well as all overhead type costs are charged to expense as incurred. DAC are amortized in proportion to net earned premiums. When an insured obligation is retired early, the remaining related DAC is expensed at that time.
Expected losses, which include loss adjustment expenses (“LAE”), investment income, and the remaining costs of servicing the insured or reinsured business, are considered in determining the recoverability of DAC.
The insured portfolio includes policies accounted for under three separate accounting models depending on the characteristics of the contract and the Company's control rights. The Company has paid and expects to pay future losses on policies which fall under each of the three accounting models. The following provides a summarized description of the three accounting models required under GAAP for each type of contract, with references to additional information provided throughout this report. The three models are insurance, derivative and VIE consolidation.
The following is a summary of each of the accounting models prescribed by GAAP with a reference to the notes that describe the accounting polices and required disclosures. This note provides information regarding expected claim payments to be made under all insured contracts regardless of form of execution.
For contracts that do not meet the financial guaranty scope exception in the derivative accounting guidance (primarily due to the fact that the insured is not required to be exposed to the insured risk throughout the life of the contract), the Company records such credit derivative contracts at fair value on the consolidated balance sheet with changes in fair value recorded in the consolidated statement of operations. Expected loss to be paid is an important measure used by management to analyze the net economic loss on credit derivatives. The fair value recorded on the balance sheet represents an exit price in a hypothetical market because the Company does not trade its credit derivative contracts. The fair value is determined using significant Level 3 inputs in an internally developed model while the expected loss to be paid (which represents the present value of expected cash outflows) uses methodologies and assumptions consistent with financial guaranty insurance expected losses to be paid. See Note 8, Fair Value Measurement and Note 9, Financial Guaranty Contracts Accounted for as Credit Derivatives.
For financial guaranty insurance contracts issued on the debt of variable interest entities over which the Company is deemed to be the primary beneficiary due to its control rights, as defined in accounting literature, the Company consolidates the FG VIE. The Company's expected loss to be paid is reflected in the fair value of the FG VIEs liabilities. The Company carries the assets and liabilities of the FG VIEs at fair value under the fair value option election. Management assesses the losses on the insured debt of the consolidated FG VIEs in the same manner as other financial guaranty insurance and credit
Gross amounts recovered were $485 million and $1,212 million for years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
The further behind a mortgage borrower falls in making payments, the more likely it is that he or she will default. The rate at which borrowers from a particular delinquency category (number of monthly payments behind) eventually default is referred to as the “liquidation rate.” Liquidation rates may be derived from observed roll rates, which are the rates at which loans progress from one delinquency category to the next and eventually to default and liquidation. The Company applies liquidation rates to the mortgage loan collateral in each delinquency category and makes certain timing assumptions to project near-term mortgage collateral defaults from loans that are currently delinquent.
Mortgage borrowers that are not more than one payment behind (generally considered performing borrowers) have demonstrated an ability and willingness to pay throughout the recession and mortgage crisis, and as a result are viewed as less likely to default than delinquent borrowers. Performing borrowers that eventually default will also need to progress through delinquency categories before any defaults occur. The Company projects how many of the currently performing loans will
The Company's RMBS loss projection methodology assumes that the housing and mortgage markets will eventually improve. Each quarter the Company makes a judgment as to whether to change the assumptions it uses to make RMBS loss projections based on its observation during the quarter of the performance of its insured transactions (including early stage delinquencies, late stage delinquencies and, for first liens, loss severity) as well as the residential property market and economy in general, and, to the extent it observes changes, it makes a judgment as whether those changes are normal fluctuations or part of a trend. Based on such observations, the Company chose to use essentially the same assumptions and scenarios to project RMBS loss as of December 31, 2012 as it used as of December 31, 2011, except that as compared to December 31, 2011:
The Company's use of essentially the same assumptions and scenarios to project RMBS losses as of December 31, 2012 as at December 31, 2011 was consistent with its view at December 31, 2012 that the housing and mortgage market recovery is occurring at a slower pace than it anticipated at December 31, 2011. The Company's changes during 2012 to the period it would take the mortgage market to recover in its most optimistic scenario and its most pessimistic scenario allowed it to consider a wider range of possibilities for the speed of the recovery. Since the Company's projections for each RMBS transaction are based on the delinquency performance of the loans in that individual RMBS transaction, improvement or deterioration in that aspect of a transaction's performance impacts the projections for that transaction. The methodology and assumptions the Company uses to project RMBS losses and the scenarios it employs are described in more detail below under "- U.S. Second Lien RMBS Loss Projections: HELOCs and Closed-End Second Lien" and " - U.S. First Lien RMBS Loss Projections: Alt A First Lien, Option ARM, Subprime and Prime".
The Company's use of essentially the same assumptions and scenarios to project RMBS losses as of December 31, 2011 as at December 31, 2010 was consistent with its view at December 31, 2011 that the housing and mortgage market recovery was occurring at a slower pace than it anticipated at December 31, 2010. Since the Company's projections for each RMBS transaction are based on the delinquency performance of the loans in that individual RMBS transaction, improvement or deterioration in that aspect of a transaction's performance impacts the projections for that transaction. The methodology and assumptions the Company uses to project RMBS losses and the scenarios it employs are described in more detail below under "- U.S. Second Lien RMBS Loss Projections: HELOCs and Closed-End Second Lien" and " - U.S. First Lien RMBS Loss Projections: Alt A First Lien, Option ARM, Subprime and Prime".
The Company insures two types of second lien RMBS: those secured by HELOCs and those secured by closed end second lien mortgages. HELOCs are revolving lines of credit generally secured by a second lien on a one to four family home. A mortgage for a fixed amount secured by a second lien on a one to four family home is generally referred to as a closed end second lien. Second lien RMBS sometimes include a portion of loan collateral with a different priority than the majority of the collateral. The Company has material exposure to second lien mortgage loans originated and serviced by a number of parties, but the Company’s most significant second lien exposure is to HELOCs originated and serviced by Countrywide, a subsidiary of Bank of America. See “-Breaches of Representations and Warranties.”
The delinquency performance of HELOC and closed end second lien exposures included in transactions insured by the Company began to deteriorate in 2007, and such transactions continue to perform below the Company’s original underwriting expectations. While insured securities benefit from structural protections within the transactions designed to absorb collateral losses in excess of previous historically high levels, in many second lien RMBS projected losses now exceed those structural protections.
The following table shows the range of key assumptions for the calculation of expected loss to be paid for individual transactions for direct vintage 2004 - 2008 second lien U.S. RMBS.
balance is liquidated in the second projected month, the 90-119 day balance is liquidated in the third projected month and the 60-89 day balance is liquidated in the fourth projected month). For the fifth month the CDR is calculated using the average 30-59 day past due balances for the prior three months. The fifth month CDR is then used as the basis for the plateau period that follows the embedded five months of losses.
As of December 31, 2012, for the base case scenario, the CDR (the “plateau CDR”) was held constant for one month. Once the plateau period has ended, the CDR is assumed to gradually trend down in uniform increments to its final long-term steady state CDR. In the base case scenario, the time over which the CDR trends down to its final CDR is 30 months. Therefore, the total stress period for second lien transactions is 36 months, comprising five months of delinquent data, a one month plateau period and 30 months of decrease to the steady state CDR. This is the same as December 31, 2011, but 12 months longer than the total stress period of 24 months (comprising five months of delinquent data, a one month plateau period and 18 months of decrease to the steady state CDR) it used for December 31, 2010. The long-term steady state CDR is calculated as the constant CDR that would have yielded the amount of losses originally expected at underwriting. When a second lien loan defaults, there is generally a very low recovery. Based on current expectations of future performance, the Company assumes that it will only recover 2% of the collateral, the same as December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
The rate at which the principal amount of loans is prepaid may impact both the amount of losses projected (which is a function of the CDR and the loan balance over time) as well as the amount of excess spread (which is the excess of the interest paid by the borrowers on the underlying loan over the amount of interest and expenses owed on the insured obligations). In the base case, the current CPR (based on experience of the most recent three quarters) is assumed to continue until the end of the plateau before gradually increasing to the final CPR over the same period the CDR decreases. For transactions where the initial CPR is higher than the final CPR, the initial CPR is held constant. The final CPR is assumed to be 10% for both HELOC and closed-end second lien transactions. This level is much higher than current rates for most transactions, but lower than the historical average, which reflects the Company’s continued uncertainty about the projected performance of the borrowers in these transactions. This pattern is consistent with how the Company modeled the CPR at December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010. To the extent that prepayments differ from projected levels it could materially change the Company’s projected excess spread and losses.
The Company uses a number of other variables in its second lien loss projections, including the spread between relevant interest rate indices, and HELOC draw rates (the amount of new advances provided on existing HELOCs expressed as a percentage of current outstanding advances). For HELOC transactions, the draw rate is assumed to decline from the current level to a final draw rate over a period of three months. The final draw rates were assumed to range from 0.0% to 2.4%.
As of December 31, 2012, the Company’s base case assumed a one month CDR plateau and a 30 month ramp-down (for a total stress period of 36 months). The Company also modeled a scenario with a longer period of elevated defaults and another with a shorter period of elevated defaults and weighted them the same as of December 31, 2011. Increasing the CDR plateau to four months and increasing the ramp-down by three months to 33-months (for a total stress period of 42 months) would increase the expected loss by approximately $48 million for HELOC transactions and $3 million for closed-end second lien transactions. On the other hand, keeping the CDR plateau at one month but decreasing the length of the CDR ramp-down to 21 months (for a total stress period of 27 months) would decrease the expected loss by approximately $50 million for HELOC transactions and $3 million for closed-end second lien transactions. The length of the total stress period the Company used in its pessimistic scenario December 31, 2012 was three months longer than the total stress period it used at December 31, 2011 and 15 months longer than the total stress period it used at December 31, 2010. On the other hand, the total stress period the Company used in its optimistic scenario at December 31, 2012 was three months shorter than the total stress period it used at December 31, 2011 but nine months longer than the total stress period it used at December 31, 2010.
The performance of the Company’s first lien RMBS exposures began to deteriorate in 2007 and such transactions, continue to perform below the Company’s original underwriting expectations. The Company currently projects first lien collateral losses many times those expected at the time of underwriting. While insured securities benefited from structural protections within the transactions designed to absorb some of the collateral losses, in many first lien RMBS transactions, projected losses exceed those structural protections.
The majority of projected losses in first lien RMBS transactions are expected to come from non-performing mortgage loans (those that are delinquent or in foreclosure or where the loan has been foreclosed and the RMBS issuer owns the underlying real estate). Changes in the amount of non-performing loans from the amount projected in the previous period are one of the primary drivers of loss development in this portfolio. In order to determine the number of defaults resulting from these delinquent and foreclosed loans, the Company applies a liquidation rate assumption to loans in each of various delinquency categories. The Company arrived at its liquidation rates based on data purchased from a third party, and assumptions about how delays in the foreclosure process may ultimately affect the rate at which loans are liquidated. The liquidation rate is a standard industry measure that is used to estimate the number of loans in a given aging category that will default within a specified time period. The Company projects these liquidations to occur over two years. For both year-end 2012 and year-end 2011 the Company reviewed the data supplied by the third-party provider. Based on its review of that data, the Company maintained the same liquidation assumptions at December 31, 2012 as it had used at December 31, 2011, but these were updated from December 31, 2010. The following table shows liquidation assumptions for various delinquency categories.
The following table shows the range of key assumptions used in the calculation of expected loss to be paid for individual transactions for direct vintage 2004 - 2008 first lien U.S. RMBS.
The rate at which the principal amount of loans is prepaid may impact both the amount of losses projected (since that amount is a function of the conditional default rate, the loss severity and the loan balance over time) as well as the amount of excess spread (the amount by which the interest paid by the borrowers on the underlying loan exceeds the amount of interest owed on the insured obligations). The assumption for the CPR follows a similar pattern to that of the conditional default rate. The current level of voluntary prepayments is assumed to continue for the plateau period before gradually increasing over 12 months to the final CPR, which is assumed to be either 10% or 15% depending on the scenario run. For transactions where the initial CPR is higher than the final CPR, the initial CPR is held constant. These assumptions are the same as those it used for December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
In estimating expected losses, the Company modeled and probability weighted sensitivities for first lien transactions by varying its assumptions of how fast a recovery is expected to occur. One of the variables used to model sensitivities was how quickly the conditional default rate returned to its modeled equilibrium, which was defined as 5% of the current conditional default rate. The Company also stressed CPR and the speed of recovery of loss severity rates. The Company probability weighted a total of five scenarios (including its base case) as of December 31, 2012. For December 31, 2012 the Company used the same five scenarios and weightings as it used for December 31, 2011 except that for December 31, 2012 it assumed in the most stressful scenario that the recovery would occur three months more slowly and in the most optimistic scenario that it would occur three months more quickly than it had assumed would be the case for December 31, 2011. For December 31, 2010 the Company used only four scenarios, and there were some other differences in the assumptions used for the December 31, 2010 as compared to those used for December 31, 2012. In a somewhat more stressful environment than that of the base case, where the conditional default rate plateau was extended three months (to be 27 months long) before the same more gradual conditional default rate recovery and loss severities were assumed to recover over four rather than two
years (and subprime loss severities were assumed to recover only to 60%), expected loss to be paid would increase from current projections by approximately $83 million for Alt-A first liens, $21 million for Option ARM, $121 million for subprime and $4 million for prime transactions. In an even more stressful scenario where loss severities were assumed to rise and then recover over eight years and the initial ramp-down of the conditional default rate was assumed to occur over 15 months (rather than 12 months as of December 31, 2011) and other assumptions were the same as the other stress scenario, expected loss to be paid would increase from current projections by approximately $223 million for Alt-A first liens, $60 million for Option ARM, $188 million for subprime and $17 million for prime transactions. The Company also considered two scenarios where the recovery was faster than in its base case. In a scenario with a somewhat less stressful environment than the base case, where conditional default rate recovery was somewhat less gradual and the initial subprime loss severity rate was assumed to be 80% for 12 months and was assumed to recover to 40% over two years, expected loss to be paid would decrease from current projections by approximately $11 million for Alt-A first lien, $27 million for Option ARM, $34 million for subprime and $1 million for prime transactions. In an even less stressful scenario where the conditional default rate plateau was three months shorter (21 months, effectively assuming that liquidation rates would improve) and the conditional default rate recovery was more pronounced, (including an initial ramp-down of the conditional default rate over nine months rather than 12 months as at December 31, 2011), expected loss to be paid would decrease from current projections by approximately $82 million for Alt-A first lien, $61 million for Option ARM, $75 million for subprime and $1 million for prime transactions.
Generally, when mortgage loans are transferred into a securitization, the loan originator(s) and/or sponsor(s) provide R&W, that the loans meet certain characteristics, and a breach of such R&W often requires that the loan be repurchased from the securitization. In many of the transactions the Company insures, it is in a position to enforce these requirements. The Company uses internal resources as well as third party forensic underwriting firms and legal firms to pursue breaches of R&W. If a provider of R&W refuses to honor its repurchase obligations, the Company may choose to initiate litigation. See “-Recovery Litigation” below.
The Company's success in pursuing R&W claims against a number of counterparties that provided R&W on a loan by loan basis has permitted the Company to pursue reimbursement agreements with R&W providers. Such agreements provide the Company with many of the benefits of pursuing the R&W claims but without the expense and uncertainty of pursuing the R&W claims on a loan by loan basis.
On April 14, 2011, Assured Guaranty reached a comprehensive agreement with Bank of America Corporation and its subsidiaries, including Countrywide Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries (collectively, "Bank of America"), regarding their liabilities with respect to 29 RMBS transactions insured by Assured Guaranty, including claims relating to reimbursement for breaches of R&W and historical loan servicing issues ("Bank of America Agreement"). Of the 29 RMBS transactions, eight were second lien transactions and 21 were first lien transactions, all of which were financial guaranty insurance except for one first lien in credit derivative form. The Bank of America Agreement covers Bank of America-sponsored securitizations that AGM or AGC has insured, as well as certain other securitizations containing concentrations of Countrywide-originated loans that AGM or AGC has insured. The transactions covered by the Bank of America Agreement have a gross par outstanding of $3.5 billion ($3.2 billion net par outstanding) as of December 31, 2012.
The settlement includes eight RMBS transactions (“Covered Transactions”) that Assured Guaranty has insured through financial guaranty insurance policies. The Covered Transactions are backed by first lien and second lien mortgage loans. Under the Deutsche Bank Agreement, the Deutsche Bank reinsurance affiliate will reimburse 80% of Assured Guaranty’s future losses on the Covered Transactions until Assured Guaranty’s aggregate losses (including those to date that are partially reimbursed by the $166 million cash payment) reach $319 million. Assured Guaranty currently projects that in the base case the Covered Transactions will not generate aggregate losses in excess of $319 million. In the event aggregate losses exceed $389 million, the Deutsche Bank reinsurance affiliate is required to resume reimbursement at the rate of 85% of Assured Guaranty’s losses in excess of $389 million until such losses reach $600 million. The Covered Transactions represented $531 million of gross par outstanding ($457 million on a net basis) as of December 31, 2012.
Except for the Uninsured Tranches, the settlement does not include Assured Guaranty’s CDS with Deutsche Bank. The parties have agreed to continue efforts to resolve CDS-related claims.
The Company has included in its net expected loss estimates as of December 31, 2012 an estimated net benefit from loan repurchases related to breaches of R&W of $1.4 billion, which includes $676 million from agreements with and judgments against R&W providers and $694 million in transactions where the Company does not yet have such an agreement or judgment. (Included in the $676 million is a credit for amounts awarded in a judgment subject to appeal.) Proceeds projected to be reimbursed to the Company on transactions where the Company has already paid claims are viewed as a recovery on paid losses. For transactions where the Company has not already paid claims, projected recoveries reduce projected loss estimates. In either case, projected recoveries have no effect on the amount of the Company's exposure. See “Recovery Litigation” below for a description of the related legal proceedings the Company has commenced.
Through December 31, 2012 (but including judgments and settlements reached through February 28, 2013) the Company has caused entities providing R&Ws to pay or agree to pay (or has won a judgment requiring them to pay) approximately $2.9 billion (gross of reinsurance) in respect of their R&W liabilities for transactions in which the Company has provided a financial guaranty. Of this, $2.3 billion are payments made or to be made pursuant to agreements with or judgments against R&W providers and approximately $557 million are amounts paid into the relevant RMBS financial guaranty transactions pursuant to the transaction documents in the regular course.
The $2.3 billion of payments made or to be made by R&W providers under agreements with the Company or a judgment against them includes $1.6 billion that has already been received by the Company, as well as $698 million the Company projects receiving in the future pursuant to such currently existing agreements or judgment. Because much of that $698 million is projected to be received through loss-sharing arrangements, the exact amount the Company will receive will depend on actual losses experienced by the Covered Transactions. This amount is included in the Company's calculated credit for R&W recoveries, described below.
The calculation of expected recovery from breaches of R&W involved a variety of scenarios which ranged from the Company recovering substantially all of the losses it incurred due to violations of R&W to the Company realizing limited recoveries. These scenarios were probability weighted in order to determine the recovery incorporated into the Company’s estimate of expected losses. This approach was used for both loans that had already defaulted and those assumed to default in the future.
(1) A risk represents the aggregate of the financial guaranty policies that share the same revenue source for purposes of making Debt Service payments.
The Company has insured or reinsured $5.7 billion of net par (72% of which is in CDS form) of collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) backed by TruPS and similar debt instruments, or “TruPS CDOs.” Of the $5.7 billion, $2.9 billion is rated BIG. The underlying collateral in the TruPS CDOs consists of subordinated debt instruments such as TruPS issued by bank holding companies and similar instruments issued by insurance companies, real estate investment trusts (“REITs”) and other real estate related issuers.
U.S. municipalities and related entities have been under increasing pressure over the last few quarters, and a few have filed for protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, entered into state processes designed to help municipalities in fiscal distress or otherwise indicated they may consider not meeting their obligations to make timely payments on their debts. The Company expects that bondholder rights will be enforced. However, given some of these developments, and the circumstances surrounding each instance, the ultimate outcome cannot be certain. The Company will continue to analyze developments in each of these matters closely. The municipalities whose obligations the Company has insured that have filed for protection under Chapter 9 of the U.S Bankruptcy Code are: Jefferson County, Alabama and Stockton, California. The City Council of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania had also filed a purported bankruptcy petition, which was later dismissed by the bankruptcy court; a receiver for the City of Harrisburg was appointed by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on December 2, 2011.
The Company has net exposure to Jefferson County, Alabama of $708 million as of December 31, 2012. On November 9, 2011, Jefferson County filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Most of the Company's net Jefferson County exposure relates to $479 million in sewer revenue exposure, of which $206 million is direct and $273 million is assumed reinsurance exposure. The sewer revenue warrants are secured by a pledge of the net revenues of the sewer system. The bankruptcy court has affirmed that the net revenues constitute a “special revenue” under Chapter 9. Therefore, the lien on net revenues of the sewer system survives the bankruptcy filing and such net revenues are not subject to the automatic stay during the pendency of Jefferson County's bankruptcy case. BNY Mellon, as trustee, had brought a lawsuit regarding the amount of net revenues to which it is entitled. Since its bankruptcy filing, Jefferson County had been withholding estimated bankruptcy-related legal expenses and an amount representing a monthly reserve for future expenditures and depreciation and amortization from the monthly payments it had been making to the trustee from sewer revenues for Debt Service. On June 29, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that “Operating Expenses” as determined under the
bond indenture do not include (1) a reserve for depreciation, amortization, or future expenditures, or (2) an estimate for professional fees and expenses, such that, after payment of Operating Expenses (as defined in the indenture), monies remaining in the Revenue Account created under the bond indenture must be distributed in accordance with the waterfall set forth in the indenture without withholding any monies for depreciation, amortization, reserves, or estimated expenditures that are the subject of this litigation. Whether sufficient net revenues will be available for the payment of regularly scheduled debt service ultimately depends on the bankruptcy court's valuation of the sewer revenue stream. The Company also has assumed exposure of $32 million to warrants that are payable from Jefferson County's general fund on a "subject to appropriation" basis. In 2012 Jefferson County chose not to make payment under its General Obligation bonds, so the Company has established a projected loss for these warrants as well. The Company's remaining net exposure of $197 million to Jefferson County relates to obligations that are secured by, or payable from, certain taxes that may have the benefit of a statutory lien or a lien on “special revenues” or other collateral.
On June 28, 2012, the City of Stockton, California filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Company's net exposure to Stockton's general fund is $158 million, consisting of pension obligation and lease revenue bonds. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had paid $9 million in net claims.
The Company insures or reinsures a total of $297 million net par of securities backed by manufactured housing loans, a total of $204 million rated BIG. The Company has expected loss to be paid of $33 million as of December 31, 2012 compared to $24 million as of December 31, 2011.
debt, the Company expected it to be refinanced in the market at or prior to its maturity. Due to market dislocation and increased credit spreads, the Company may have to pay a claim at the maturity of the securities, and then recover its payment from cash flows produced by the project in the future. The Company generally projects that in most scenarios it will be fully reimbursed for such payments. However, the recovery of the payments may take a long time and is uncertain. The claim payments are anticipated to occur substantially between 2014 and 2017, while the recoveries could take 20-45 years, depending on the transaction and the performance of the underlying collateral.
Credit Suisse: AGM and AGC have sued DLJ and Credit Suisse on first lien U.S. RMBS transactions insured by them. The ones insured by AGM are: CSAB Mortgage-Backed Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-2; CSAB Mortgage-Backed Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-3; CSAB Mortgage-Backed Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-4; and CMSC Mortgage-Backed Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-3. The ones insured by AGC are: CSAB Mortgage-Backed Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-1 and TBW Mortgage-Backed Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-2. On December 6, 2011, DLJ and Credit Suisse filed a motion to dismiss the cause of action asserting breach of the document containing the condition precedent regarding the rating of the securities and claims for recissionary damages and other relief in the complaint, and on October 11, 2012, the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted the motion to dismiss. AGM and AGC intend to appeal the dismissal of certain of its claims. The causes of action against DLJ for breach of R&W and breach of its repurchase obligations remain.
UBS: AGM has sued UBS on the MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2006-OA2, MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2007-1 and MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2007-3 first lien transactions. In
AGM also has a lawsuit pending against UBS Securities LLC, as underwriter, as well as several named and unnamed control persons of IndyMac Bank, FSB and related IndyMac entities, that it filed in September 2010 on the IndyMac IMSC Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2007-HOA-1a first lien transaction (the "HOA1 Transaction"), seeking damages for alleged violations of state securities laws and breach of contract, among other claims. In addition, on August 9, 2012, AGM filed a complaint against OneWest Bank, FSB, the servicer of the mortgage loans underlying the HOA1 Transaction and the IndyMac Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust, Series 2007-H1 HELOC transaction seeking damages, specific performance and declaratory relief in connection with OneWest failing to properly service the mortgage loans.
In June 2010, AGM sued JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and JPMorgan Securities, Inc. (together, “JPMorgan”), the underwriter of debt issued by Jefferson County, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York alleging that JPMorgan induced AGM to issue its insurance policies in respect of such debt through material and fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, including concealing that it had secured its position as underwriter and swap provider through bribes to Jefferson County commissioners and others. In December 2010, the court denied JPMorgan’s motion to dismiss. AGM has filed a motion with the Jefferson County bankruptcy court to confirm that continued prosecution of the lawsuit against JPMorgan will not violate the automatic stay applicable to Jefferson County notwithstanding JPMorgan’s interpleading of Jefferson County into the lawsuit. AGM is continuing its risk remediation efforts for this exposure.
Under financial guaranty insurance accounting, the sum of unearned premium reserve (deferred premium revenue, less claim payments that have not yet been expensed or "contra-paid"), and loss and LAE reserve represents the Company's stand-ready obligation. At contract inception, the entire stand-ready obligation is represented by unearned premium reserve. A loss and LAE reserve for an insurance contract is only recorded when the expected loss to be paid plus contra-paid (“total losses”) exceed the deferred premium revenue on a contract by contract basis.
When a claim payment is made on a contract it first reduces any recorded loss and LAE reserve. To the extent a loss and LAE reserve is not recorded on a contract, which occurs when total losses are less than deferred premium revenue, or to the extent loss and LAE reserve is not sufficient to cover a claim payment, then such claim payment is recorded as “contra-paid,” which reduces the unearned premium reserve. The contra-paid is recognized in the line item “loss and LAE” in the consolidated statement of operations when and for the amount that total losses exceed the remaining deferred premium revenue on the insurance contract. Loss and LAE in the consolidated statement of operations is presented net of cessions to reinsurers.
When the Company becomes entitled to the cash flow from the underlying collateral of an insured credit under salvage and subrogation rights as a result of a claim payment or estimated future claim payment, it reduces the expected loss to be paid on the contract. Such reduction in expected to be paid can result in one of the following:
The Company recognizes the expected recovery of claim payments made by an acquired subsidiary, including recoveries from settlement with R&W providers, prior to the date of acquisition consistent with its policy for recognizing recoveries on all financial guaranty insurance contracts. To the extent that the estimated amount of recoveries increases or decreases, due to changes in facts and circumstances, including the examination of additional loan files and our experience in recovering loans put back to the originator, the Company would recognize a benefit or expense consistent with how changes in the expected recovery of all other claim payments are recorded. The ceded component of salvage and subrogation is recorded in the line item reinsurance balances payable.
The following table reconciles the loss and LAE reserve and salvage and subrogation components on the consolidated balance sheet to the financial guaranty net reserves (salvage) in the financial guaranty BIG transaction loss summary tables.
(2) R&W recoveries recorded in other assets on the consolidated balance sheet.
The remaining benefit for R&W is not recorded on the balance sheet until the expected loss, net of R&W, exceeds unearned premium reserve.
The following table provides a schedule of the expected timing of net expected losses to be expensed. The amount and timing of actual loss and LAE may differ from the estimates shown below due to factors such as refundings, accelerations, commutations, changes in expected lives and updates to loss estimates. A loss and LAE reserve is only recorded for the amount by which expected loss to be expensed exceeds deferred premium revenue determined on a contract-by-contract basis. This table excludes amounts related to consolidated FG VIEs, which are eliminated in consolidation.
The following table provides information on non-derivative financial guaranty insurance contracts categorized as BIG.
Includes estimated future recoveries for breaches of R&W as well as excess spread, and draws on HELOCs.
For example, AGM has issued financial guaranty insurance policies in respect of the obligations of municipal obligors under interest rate swaps. Under the swaps, AGM insures periodic payments owed by the municipal obligors to the bank counterparties. Under certain of the swaps, AGM also insures termination payments that may be owed by the municipal obligors to the bank counterparties. If (i) AGM has been downgraded below the rating trigger set forth in a swap under which it has insured the termination payment, which rating trigger varies on a transaction by transaction basis; (ii) the municipal obligor has the right to cure by, but has failed in, posting collateral, replacing AGM or otherwise curing the downgrade of AGM; (iii) the transaction documents include as a condition that an event of default or termination event with respect to the municipal obligor has occurred, such as the rating of the municipal obligor being downgraded past a specified level, and such condition has been met; (iv) the bank counterparty has elected to terminate the swap; (v) a termination payment is payable by the municipal obligor; and (vi) the municipal obligor has failed to make the termination payment payable by it, then AGM would be required to pay the termination payment due by the municipal obligor, in an amount not to exceed the policy limit set forth in the financial guaranty insurance policy. The claim payments would be subject to recovery from the municipal obligor. As a result of the January 2013 Moody's downgrade of the financial strength rating of AGM, if the conditions giving rise to the obligation of AGM to make a payment under the swap policies were all satisfied, then AGM could pay claims in an amount not exceeding $109 million in respect of such termination payments. Taking into consideration whether the rating of the municipal obligor is below any applicable specified trigger, if the financial strength ratings of AGM were further downgraded below "A" by S&P or below "A2" by Moody's, and the conditions giving rise to the obligation of AGM to make a payment under the swap policies were all satisfied, then AGM could pay claims in an additional amount not exceeding $258 million in respect of such termination payments.
As another example, with respect to variable rate demand obligations ("VRDOs") for which a bank has agreed to provide a liquidity facility, a downgrade of AGM or AGC may provide the bank with the right to give notice to bondholders that the bank will terminate the liquidity facility, causing the bondholders to tender their bonds to the bank. Bonds held by the bank accrue interest at a “bank bond rate” that is higher than the rate otherwise borne by the bond (typically the prime rate plus 2.00% - 3.00%, and capped at the lesser of 25% and the maximum legal limit). In the event the bank holds such bonds for longer than a specified period of time, usually 90-180 days, the bank has the right to demand accelerated repayment of bond principal, usually through payment of equal installments over a period of not less than five years. In the event that a municipal obligor is unable to pay interest accruing at the bank bond rate or to pay principal during the shortened amortization period, a claim could be submitted to AGM or AGC under its financial guaranty policy. As of December 31, 2012, AGM and AGC had insured approximately $12.3 billion net par of VRDOs, of which approximately $0.6 billion of net par constituted VRDOs issued by municipal obligors rated BBB- or lower pursuant to the Company’s internal rating. As of the date of this filing, the Company has not been notified that a bank has terminated a liquidity facility as a result of the January 2013 Moody's downgrade, nor has there been a failed remarketing of the AGM or AGC VRDOs, although in some cases, VRDOs insured by AGM or AGC have remarketed at higher interest rates. The specific terms relating to the rating levels that trigger the bank’s termination right, and whether it is triggered by a downgrade by one rating agency or a downgrade by all rating agencies then rating the insurer, vary depending on the transaction.
The Company carries a significant portion of its assets and liabilities at fair value. Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (i.e., exit price). The price represents the price available in the principal market for the asset or liability. If there
Valuation adjustments may be made to ensure that financial instruments are recorded at fair value. These adjustments include amounts to reflect counterparty credit quality, the Company’s creditworthiness and constraints on liquidity. As markets and products develop and the pricing for certain products becomes more or less transparent, the Company may refine its methodologies and assumptions. During 2012, no changes were made to the Company’s valuation models that had or are expected to have, a material impact on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets or statements of operations and comprehensive income.
The fair value of bonds in the investment portfolio is generally based on prices received from third party pricing services or alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency. The pricing services prepare estimates of fair value measurements using their pricing applications, which include available relevant market information, benchmark curves, benchmarking of like securities, sector groupings, and matrix pricing. Additional valuation factors that can be taken into account are nominal spreads and liquidity adjustments. The pricing services evaluate each asset class based on relevant market and credit information, perceived market movements, and sector news. The market inputs used in the pricing evaluation, listed in the approximate order of priority include: benchmark yields, reported trades, broker/dealer quotes, issuer spreads, two-sided markets, benchmark securities, bids, offers, reference data and industry and economic events. Benchmark yields have in many cases taken priority over reported trades for securities that trade less frequently. The extent of the use of each input is dependent on the asset class and the market conditions. Given the asset class, the priority of the use of inputs may change or some market inputs may not be relevant. Additionally, the valuation of fixed maturity investments is more subjective when markets are less liquid due to the lack of market based inputs, which may increase the potential that the estimated fair value of an investment is not reflective of the price at which an actual transaction would occur. The vast majority of fixed maturities are classified as Level 2.
Short-term investments, that are traded in active markets, are classified within Level 1 in the fair value hierarchy and are based on quoted market prices. Securities such as discount notes are classified within Level 2 because these securities are typically not actively traded due to their approaching maturity and, as such, their cost approximates fair value.
Prices determined based upon model processes where at least one significant model assumption or input is unobservable, are considered to be Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy. At December 31, 2012, the Company used model processes to price 37 fixed maturity securities, which was 5.2% or $560 million of the Company’s fixed maturity securities and short-term investments at fair value. Level 3 securities were priced with the assistance of an independent third-party. The pricing is based on a discounted cash flow approach using the third-party’s proprietary pricing models. The models use inputs such as projected prepayment speeds; severity assumptions; recovery lag assumptions; estimated default rates (determined on the basis of an analysis of collateral attributes, historical collateral performance, borrower profiles and other features relevant to the evaluation of collateral credit quality); house price depreciation/appreciation rates based on macroeconomic forecasts and recent trading activity. The yield used to discount the projected cash flows is determined by reviewing various attributes of the bond including collateral type, weighted average life, sensitivity to losses, vintage, and convexity, in conjunction with market data on comparable securities. Significant changes to any of these inputs could materially change the expected timing of cash flows within these securities which is a significant factor in determining the fair value of the securities.
Other invested assets includes certain investments that are carried and measured at fair value on a recurring basis and non-recurring basis, as well as assets not carried at fair value. Within other invested assets, $112 million are carried at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2012. These assets primarily comprise certain short-term investments and fixed maturity securities classified as trading and are Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy. Also carried at fair value on a recurring basis are $1 million in notes classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy. The fair value of these notes is determined by calculating the present value of the expected cash flows. The unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement of the notes are discount rate, prepayment speed and default rate.
The fair value of CCS, which is recorded in “other assets” on the consolidated balance sheets, represents the difference between the present value of remaining expected put option premium payments under AGC’s CCS (the “AGC CCS Securities”)
and AGM’s Committed Preferred Trust Securities (the “AGM CPS Securities”) agreements, and the estimated present value that the Company would hypothetically have to pay currently for a comparable security (see Note 17, Long Term Debt and Credit Facilities). The estimated current cost of the Company’s CCS depends on several factors, including broker-dealer quotes for the outstanding securities, the U.S. dollar forward swap curve, London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") curve projections and the term the securities are estimated to remain outstanding.
The Company’s credit derivatives consist primarily of insured CDS contracts, and also include interest rate swaps that fall under derivative accounting standards requiring fair value accounting through the statement of operations. The Company does not enter into CDS with the intent to trade these contracts and the Company may not unilaterally terminate a CDS contract absent an event of default or termination event that entitles the Company to terminate; however, the Company has mutually agreed with various counterparties to terminate certain CDS transactions. Such terminations generally are completed for an amount that approximates the present value of future premiums, not at fair value.
The terms of the Company’s CDS contracts differ from more standardized credit derivative contracts sold by companies outside the financial guaranty industry. Management considers the non-standard terms of its credit derivative contracts in determining the fair value of these contracts. The non-standard terms include the absence of collateral support agreements or immediate settlement provisions. In addition, the Company employs relatively high attachment points and does not exit derivatives it sells or purchases for credit protection purposes, except under specific circumstances such as mutual agreements with counterparties to terminate certain CDS contracts.
Due to the lack of quoted prices for its instruments or for similar instruments, the Company determines the fair value of its credit derivative contracts primarily through modeling that uses various inputs to derive an estimate of the fair value of the Company’s contracts in principal markets. Observable inputs other than quoted market prices exist; however, these inputs reflect contracts that do not contain terms and conditions similar to the credit derivative contracts issued by the Company. Management does not believe there is an established market where financial guaranty insured credit derivatives are actively traded. The terms of the protection under an insured financial guaranty credit derivative do not, except for certain rare circumstances, allow the Company to exit its contracts. Management has determined that the exit market for the Company’s credit derivatives is a hypothetical one based on its entry market. Management has tracked the historical pricing of the Company’s deals to establish historical price points in the hypothetical market that are used in the fair value calculation. These contracts are classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy since there is reliance on at least one unobservable input deemed significant to the valuation model, most importantly the Company’s estimate of the value of the non-standard terms and conditions of its credit derivative contracts and of the Company’s current credit standing.
The fair value of the Company’s credit derivative contracts represents the difference between the present value of remaining net premiums the Company expects to receive or pay for the credit protection under the contract and the estimated present value of premiums that a financial guarantor of comparable credit-worthiness would hypothetically charge or pay the Company for the same protection. The fair value of the Company’s credit derivatives depends on a number of factors, including notional amount of the contract, expected term, credit spreads, changes in interest rates, the credit ratings of referenced entities, the Company’s own credit risk and remaining contractual cash flows. The expected remaining contractual cash flows are the most readily observable inputs since they are based on the CDS contractual terms. These cash flows include premiums to be received or paid under the terms of the contract. Credit spreads capture the effect of recovery rates and performance of underlying assets of
Valuation models include management estimates and current market information. Management is also required to make assumptions of how the fair value of credit derivative instruments is affected by current market conditions. Management considers factors such as current prices charged for similar agreements, when available, performance of underlying assets, life of the instrument, and the nature and extent of activity in the financial guaranty credit derivative marketplace. The assumptions that management uses to determine the fair value may change in the future due to market conditions. Due to the inherent uncertainties of the assumptions used in the valuation models to determine the fair value of these credit derivative products, actual experience may differ from the estimates reflected in the Company’s consolidated financial statements and the differences may be material.
Gross spread is used to ultimately determine the net spread a comparable financial guarantor would charge the Company to transfer its risk at the reporting date. The Company obtains gross spreads on risks assumed from market data sources published by third parties (e.g. dealer spread tables for the collateral similar to assets within the Company’s transactions) as well as collateral-specific spreads provided by trustees or obtained from market sources. If observable market credit spreads are not available or reliable for the underlying reference obligations, then market indices are used that most closely resemble the underlying reference obligations, considering asset class, credit quality rating and maturity of the underlying reference obligations. These indices are adjusted to reflect the non-standard terms of the Company’s CDS contracts. Market sources determine credit spreads by reviewing new issuance pricing for specific asset classes and receiving price quotes from their trading desks for the specific asset in question. Management validates these quotes by cross-referencing quotes received from one market source against quotes received from another market source to ensure reasonableness. In addition, the Company compares the relative change in price quotes received from one quarter to another, with the relative change experienced by published market indices for a specific asset class. Collateral specific spreads obtained from third-party, independent market sources are un-published spread quotes from market participants or market traders who are not trustees. Management obtains this information as the result of direct communication with these sources as part of the valuation process.
conditions and the Company’s own credit spreads, approximately 71%, as of December 31, 2012 and approximately 78% as of December 31, 2011 of our CDS contracts are fair valued using this minimum premium. The Company corroborates the assumptions in its fair value model, including the portion of exposure to AGC and AGM hedged by its counterparties, with independent third parties each reporting period. The current level of AGC’s and AGM’s own credit spread has resulted in the bank or deal originator hedging a significant portion of its exposure to AGC and AGM. This reduces the amount of contractual cash flows AGC and AGM can capture as premium for selling its protection.
A fair value resulting in a credit derivative asset on protection sold is the result of contractual cash inflows on in-force deals in excess of what a hypothetical financial guarantor could receive if it sold protection on the same risk as of the reporting date. If the Company were able to freely exchange these contracts (i.e., assuming its contracts did not contain proscriptions on transfer and there was a viable exchange market), it would be able to realize a gain representing the difference between the higher contractual premiums to which it is entitled and the current market premiums for a similar contract. The Company determines the fair value of its CDS contracts by applying the difference between the current net spread and the contractual net spread for the remaining duration of each contract to the notional value of its CDS contracts.
In Scenario 1, the gross spread is 185 basis points. The bank or deal originator captures 115 basis points of the original gross spread and hedges 10% of its exposure to AGC, when the CDS spread on AGC was 300 basis points (300 basis points × 10% = 30 basis points). Under this scenario the Company received premium of 40 basis points, or 22% of the gross spread.
In this example, the contractual cash flows (the Company premium received per annum above) exceed the amount a market participant would require the Company to pay in today’s market to accept its obligations under the CDS contract, thus resulting in an asset. This credit derivative asset is equal to the difference in premium rates discounted at the corresponding LIBOR over the weighted average remaining life of the contract.
· The model takes into account the transaction structure and the key drivers of market value. The transaction structure includes par insured, weighted average life, level of subordination and composition of collateral.
· At December 31, 2012 and 2011, the markets for the inputs to the model were highly illiquid, which impacts their reliability.
The Company elected the fair value option for all the FG VIEs’ assets and liabilities. See Note 10, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities.
The fair value of the Company’s financial guaranty contracts accounted for as insurance was based on management’s estimate of what a similarly rated financial guaranty insurance company would demand to acquire the Company’s in-force book of financial guaranty insurance business. This amount was based on the pricing assumptions management has observed for portfolio transfers that have occurred in the financial guaranty market and included adjustments to the carrying value of unearned premium reserve for stressed losses, ceding commissions and return on capital. The significant inputs were not readily observable. The Company accordingly classified this fair value measurement as Level 3.
Amounts recorded at fair value in the Company’s financial statements are included in the tables below.
Includes mortgage loans that are recorded at fair value on a non-recurring basis. At December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, such investments were carried at their market value of $7 million and $9 million, respectively.
The table below presents a roll forward of the Company’s Level 3 financial instruments carried at fair value on a recurring basis during the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011.
Carrying amount includes the the assets and liabilities related to financial guaranty insurance contract premiums, losses, and salvage and subrogation and other recoverables net of reinsurance.
The Company has a portfolio of financial guaranty contracts that meet the definition of a derivative in accordance with GAAP (primarily CDS). Until the Company ceased selling credit protection through credit derivative contracts in the beginning of 2009, following the issuance of regulatory guidelines that limited the terms under which the credit protection could be sold, management considered these agreements to be a normal part of its financial guaranty business. The potential capital or margin requirements that may apply under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act contributed to the decision of the Company not to sell new credit protection through CDS in the foreseeable future.
Represents the sum of subordinate tranches and over-collateralization and does not include any benefit from excess interest collections that may be used to absorb losses.
Except for TruPS CDOs, the Company’s exposure to pooled corporate obligations is highly diversified in terms of obligors and industries. Most pooled corporate transactions are structured to limit exposure to any given obligor and industry. The majority of the Company’s pooled corporate exposure consists of collateralized loan obligation (“CLO”) or synthetic pooled corporate obligations. Most of these CLOs have an average obligor size of less than 1% of the total transaction and typically restrict the maximum exposure to any one industry to approximately 10%. The Company’s exposure also benefits from embedded credit enhancement in the transactions which allows a transaction to sustain a certain level of losses in the underlying collateral, further insulating the Company from industry specific concentrations of credit risk on these deals.
The Company’s exposure to “Other” CDS contracts is also highly diversified. It includes $3.2 billion of exposure to three pooled infrastructure transactions comprising diversified pools of international infrastructure project transactions and loans to regulated utilities. These pools were all structured with underlying credit enhancement sufficient for the Company to attach at super senior AAA levels at origination. The remaining $6.1 billion of exposure in “Other” CDS contracts comprises numerous deals across various asset classes, such as commercial receivables, international RMBS, infrastructure, regulated utilities and consumer receivables. Of the total net par outstanding in the "Other" sector, $983 million is rated BIG.
In years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, CDS contracts totaling $2.3 billion and $11.5 billion in net par were terminated, resulting in accelerations of credit derivative revenue of $3 million in 2012 and $25 million in 2011.
In 2011, U.S. RMBS unrealized fair value gains were generated primarily in the Option ARM, Alt-A, prime first lien and subprime sectors primarily as a result of the increased cost to buy protection in AGC's name as the market cost of AGC's credit protection increased. These transactions were pricing above their floor levels; therefore when the cost of purchasing CDS protection on AGC, increased the implied, spreads that the Company would expect to receive on these transactions decreased. The unrealized fair value gain in "other" primarily resulted from tighter implied net spreads on a XXX life securitization transaction and a film securitization, which also resulted from the increased cost to buy protection in AGC's name, referenced above. The cost of AGM's credit protection also increased during the year, but did not lead to significant fair value gains, as the majority of AGM policies continue to price at floor levels.
In 2010, U.S. RMBS unrealized fair value losses were generated primarily in the Option ARM and Alt-A first lien sector due to internal ratings downgrades on several of these Option ARM and Alt-A first lien policies. The unrealized fair value gain within the TruPS CDO and Other asset classes resulted from tighter implied spreads. These transactions were pricing above their floor levels; therefore when the cost of purchasing CDS protection on AGC and AGM increased, the implied spreads that the Company would expect to receive on these transactions decreased. During 2010, AGC's and AGM's spreads widened. However, gains due to the widening of the Company's own CDS spreads were offset by declines in fair value resulting from price changes and the internal downgrades of several U.S. RMBS policies referenced above.
The following table presents the fair value and the present value of expected claim payments or recoveries (i.e. net expected loss to be paid as described in Note 6) for contracts accounted for as derivatives.
Net Fair Value and Expected Losses of Credit Derivatives by Sector
The transaction documentation for approximately $13.2 billion in CDS gross par insured as of December 31, 2012 requires certain of the Company's insurance subsidiaries to post eligible collateral to secure its obligation to make payments under such contracts based on (i) the mark-to-market valuation of the underlying exposure and (ii) in some cases, the financial strength ratings of such subsidiaries. Eligible collateral is generally cash or U.S. government or agency securities; eligible collateral other than cash is valued at a discount to the face amount. As a result of the January 2013 Moody's downgrade of AGC's financial strength rating, AGC was required under such transaction documentation to post approximately $70 million of additional collateral, for a total amount posted by the Company's insurance subsidiaries of approximately $728 million (which amount reflects some of the eligible collateral being valued at a discount to the face amount).
For approximately $12.8 billion of such contracts, AGC has negotiated caps such that, after giving effect to the January 2013 Moody's downgrade of AGC, the posting requirement cannot exceed a certain fixed amount, regardless of the mark-to-market valuation of the exposure or the financial strength ratings of AGC. For such contracts, AGC need not post on a cash basis more than $675 million, which amount is already being posted by AGC and is part of the approximately $728 million posted by the Company's insurance subsidiaries.
For all years presented, the Company has evaluated whether it was the primary beneficiary or control party of its VIEs. If the Company concludes that it is the primary beneficiary it is required to consolidate the entire VIE in the Company's financial statements. The accounting rules governing the criteria for determining the primary beneficiary or control party of VIEs changed effective January 1, 2010.
Effective January 1, 2010, GAAP requires the Company to perform an analysis to determine whether its variable interests give it a controlling financial interest in a VIE. This analysis identifies the primary beneficiary of a VIE as the enterprise that has both 1) the power to direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact the entity's economic performance; and 2) the obligation to absorb losses of the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE or the right to receive benefits from the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE. This guidance requires an ongoing reassessment of whether the Company is the primary beneficiary of a VIE.
As part of the terms of its financial guaranty contracts, the Company obtains certain protective rights with respect to the VIE that are triggered by the occurrence of certain events, such as failure to be in compliance with a covenant due to poor deal performance or a deterioration in a servicer or collateral manager's financial condition. At deal inception, the Company typically is not deemed to control a VIE; however, once a trigger event occurs, the Company's control of the VIE typically increases. The Company continuously evaluates its power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of VIEs that have debt obligations insured by the Company and, accordingly, where the Company is obligated to absorb VIE losses or receive benefits that could potentially be significant to the VIE. The Company obtains protective rights under its insurance contracts that give the Company additional controls over a VIE if there is either deterioration of deal performance or in the financial health of the deal servicer. The Company is deemed to be the control party under GAAP, typically when its protective rights give it the power to both terminate and replace the deal servicer, which are characteristics specific to the Company's financial guaranty contracts. If the Company’s protective rights that could make it the control party have not been triggered, then it does not consolidate the VIE. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had issued financial guaranty contracts for approximately 1,200 VIEs that it did not consolidate.
Net loss on consolidation and deconsolidation was $6 million in 2012, $95 million in 2011 and $242 million in 2010 and recorded in “fair value gains (losses) on FG VIEs” in the consolidated statement of operations.
The total unpaid principal balance for the FG VIEs’ assets that were over 90 days or more past due was approximately $893 million. The aggregate unpaid principal of the FG VIEs’ assets was approximately $2,631 million greater than the aggregate fair value at December 31, 2012. The change in the instrument-specific credit risk of the FG VIEs’ assets for 2012 were gains of $413 million. The change in the instrument-specific credit risk of the FG VIEs’ assets for 2011 were losses of $600 million.
The aggregate unpaid principal balance was approximately $2,150 million greater than the aggregate fair value of the FG VIEs’ liabilities as of December 31, 2012.
The table below shows the carrying value of the consolidated FG VIEs’ assets and liabilities in the consolidated financial statements, segregated by the types of assets that collateralize their respective debt obligations.
The majority of this gain, approximately $166 million, is a result of a R&W settlement with Deutsche Bank that closed during the second quarter 2012. While prices continued to appreciate during the period on the Company's FG VIE assets and liabilities, gains in the second half of the year were primarily driven by large principal paydowns made on the Company's FG VIEs.
For mortgage-backed securities, and any other holdings for which there is prepayment risk, prepayment assumptions are evaluated and revised as necessary. Any necessary adjustments due to changes in effective yields and maturities are recognized in current income.
The Company purchased securities that it has insured, and for which it has expected losses to be paid, in order to mitigate the economic effect of insured losses ("loss mitigation bonds"). These securities were purchased at a discount and are accounted for excluding the effects of the Company’s insurance on the securities.
Short-term investments, which are those investments with a maturity of less than one year at time of purchase, are carried at fair value and include amounts deposited in money market funds.
a decline in the market value of a security by 20% or more below amortized cost for a continuous period of at least six months;
Net investment income is a function of the yield that the Company earns on invested assets and the size of the portfolio. The investment yield is a function of market interest rates at the time of investment as well as the type, credit quality and maturity of the invested assets. Net investment income increased primarily due to higher income earned on loss mitigation bonds. Income earned on the general portfolio excluding loss mitigation bonds declined slightly due to lower reinvestment rates. Accrued investment income on fixed maturity, short-term investments and assets acquired in refinancing transactions was $97 million and $101 million as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.
Under agreements with its cedants and in accordance with statutory requirements, the Company maintains fixed maturity securities in trust accounts for the benefit of reinsured companies, which amounted to $368 million and $380 million as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. In addition, to fulfill state licensing requirements the Company has placed on deposit eligible securities of $27 million and $24 million as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. To provide collateral for a letter of credit, the Company holds a fixed maturity investment in a segregated account equal to 120% of the letter of credit, which amounted to $3.5 million and $3.5 million as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. In connection with an excess of loss reinsurance facility, $22 million were released from the trust to the reinsurers in the first quarter of 2013. See Note 14, Reinsurance and other Monoline Exposures.
Under certain derivative contracts, the Company is required to post eligible securities as collateral. The need to post collateral under these transactions is generally based on fair value assessments in excess of contractual thresholds. The fair value of the Company’s pledged securities totaled $660 million and $780 million as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. See Note 9, Financial Guaranty Contracts Accounted for as Credit Derivatives, for the effect of the downgrade on collateral posted.
No material investments of the Company were non-income producing for years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
Prior to its acquisition, AGM had also purchased assets of certain insured obligations that had triggered rights under the financial guaranty contracts. The Company has rights under certain of its financial guaranty insurance policies and indentures that allow it to accelerate the insured notes and pay claims under its insurance policies upon the occurrence of predefined events of default. To mitigate financial guaranty insurance losses, the Company had elected to purchase the outstanding insured obligation or its underlying collateral. Generally, refinancing vehicles reimburse AGM in whole for its claims payments in exchange for assignments of certain of AGM's rights against the trusts. The refinancing vehicles obtained their funds from the proceeds of AGM-insured GICs issued in the ordinary course of business by the Financial Products Companies. The refinancing vehicles are consolidated with the Company. The accretable yield on the securitized loans was $150 million and $141 million at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
In 2010, as part of loss mitigation efforts under a CDS contract insured by the Company, the Company acquired a 50% interest in Portfolio Funding Company LLC I (“PFC”). PFC owns the distribution rights of a motion picture film library. The Company accounts for its interest in PFC as an equity investment. The Company's equity earnings in PFC are included in net
change in fair value of credit derivatives, as these proceeds are used to offset the Company's payments under its CDS contract. As part of the aforementioned loss mitigation efforts, the Company also provided through PFC a subordinated debt and a working capital facility valued at $38 million as of December 31, 2011. In January 2012, the subordinated debt and working capital facility were repaid in their entirety.
Each of the Company's insurance companies' ability to pay dividends depends, among other things, upon their financial condition, results of operations, cash requirements and compliance with rating agency requirements, and is also subject to restrictions contained in the insurance laws and related regulations of their state of domicile and other states. Financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting practices prescribed or permitted by local insurance regulatory authorities differ in certain respects from GAAP.
The Company's U.S. domiciled insurance companies prepare statutory financial statements in accordance with accounting practices prescribed or permitted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) and their respective insurance departments. Prescribed statutory accounting practices are set forth in the NAIC Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual. The Company has no permitted accounting practices on a statutory basis.
AG Re, a Bermuda regulated Class 3B insurer, prepares its statutory financial statements in conformity with the accounting principles set forth in the Insurance Act 1978, amendments thereto and related regulations.
a contingency reserve is computed based on the following statutory requirements:
insured CDS are accounted for as insurance contracts rather than as derivative contracts recorded at fair value;
surplus notes are recognized as surplus rather than as a liability unless approved for repayment;
In 2009, AGC issued a $300 million surplus note to AGM. AGM records the notes in other invested assets.
AGM is a New York domiciled insurance company. Based on AGM’s statutory statements to be filed for the year ended December 31, 2012, the maximum amount available for payment of dividends by AGM without regulatory approval over the 12 months following December 31, 2012, is approximately $178 million. Also in connection with the acquisition of AGMH on July 1, 2009 ("AGMH Acquisition"), the Company committed to the New York Department of Financial Services that AGM would not pay any dividends for a period of two years from the Acquisition Date without written approval of the New York Department of Financial Services.
both as defined under the Insurance Act of 1978. AG Re, as a Class 3B insurer, is prohibited from declaring or paying in any financial year dividends of more than 25% of its total statutory capital and surplus (as shown on its previous financial year’s statutory balance sheet) unless it files (at least seven days before payment of such dividends) with the Authority an affidavit stating that it will continue to meet the required margins.
In conjunction with AGMH Acquisition, AGMH has joined the consolidated federal tax group of AGUS, AGC, and AG Financial Products Inc. (“AGFP”). In conjunction with the acquisition of MAC (formerly Municipal and Infrastructure Assurance Corporation) on May 31, 2012 (the "MAC Acquisition"), MAC has joined the consolidated federal tax group. For the periods beginning on July 1, 2009 and forward, AGMH files a consolidated federal income tax return with AGUS, AGC, AGFP and AG Analytics Inc. (“AGUS consolidated tax group”). Assured Guaranty Overseas US Holdings Inc. and its subsidiaries AGRO, Assured Guaranty Mortgage Insurance Company and AG Intermediary Inc., have historically filed their own consolidated federal income tax return.
24.5% in 2012 and prior to April 1, 2011, the U.K. corporation tax rate was 28% resulting in a blended tax rate of 26.5% in 2011. The Company’s overall corporate effective tax rate fluctuates based on the distribution of income across jurisdictions.
The expected tax provision at statutory rates in taxable jurisdictions is calculated as the sum of pretax income in each jurisdiction multiplied by the statutory tax rate of the jurisdiction by which it will be taxed. Pretax income of the Company’s subsidiaries which are not U.S. domiciled but are subject to U.S. tax by election or as controlled foreign corporations are included at the U.S. statutory tax rate. Where there is a pretax loss in one jurisdiction and pretax income in another, the total combined expected tax rate may be higher or lower than any of the individual statutory rates.
As of December 31, 2012, AGRO had a standalone NOL of $20 million, compared with $27 million as of December 31, 2011, which is available through 2023 to offset its future U.S. taxable income. AGRO's stand alone NOL may not offset the income of any other members of AGRO's consolidated group with very limited exceptions and the Internal Revenue Code limits the amounts of NOL that AGRO may utilize each year.
The Company came to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that its net deferred tax asset will be fully realized after weighing all positive and negative evidence available as required under GAAP. The positive evidence that was considered included the cumulative operating income the Company has earned over the last three years, and the significant unearned premium income to be included in taxable income. The positive evidence outweighs any negative evidence that exists. As such, the Company believes that no valuation allowance is necessary in connection with this deferred tax asset. The Company will continue to analyze the need for a valuation allowance on a quarterly basis.
The following table provides a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances of the total liability for unrecognized tax benefits. The balance of unrecognized tax benefits will be reduced within the next twelve months due to the closing of an IRS audit. The Company does not expect the changes to be material to the consolidated financial condition or results of operations.
The Company's policy is to recognize interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions in income tax expense. As of December 31, 2012, the Company has accrued $4 million of interest.
In connection with the Company's initial public offering, the Company and ACE Financial Services Inc. (“AFS”), a subsidiary of ACE, entered into a tax allocation agreement, whereby the Company and AFS made a “Section 338 (h)(10)” election that has the effect of increasing the tax basis of certain affected subsidiaries' tangible and intangible assets to fair value. Future tax benefits that the Company derives from the election will be payable to AFS when realized by the Company.
As of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the liability for tax basis step-up adjustment, which is included in the Company's balance sheets in “Other liabilities,” was $6 million and $7 million, respectively. The Company has paid ACE and correspondingly reduced its liability by $1 million in 2012.
The Company treats the guaranty it provides on CDS as insurance contracts for tax purposes and as such a taxable loss does not occur until the Company expects to make a loss payment to the buyer of credit protection based upon the occurrence of one or more specified credit events with respect to the contractually referenced obligation or entity. The Company holds its CDS to maturity, at which time any unrealized fair value loss in excess of credit-related losses would revert to zero. The tax treatment of CDS is an unsettled area of the law. The uncertainty relates to the IRS determination of the income or potential loss associated with CDS as either subject to capital gain (loss) or ordinary income (loss) treatment. In treating CDS as insurance contracts the Company treats both the receipt of premium and payment of losses as ordinary income and believes it is more likely than not that any CDS credit related losses will be treated as ordinary by the IRS. To the extent the IRS takes the view that the losses are capital losses in the future and the Company incurred actual losses associated with the CDS, the Company would need sufficient taxable income of the same character within the carryback and carryforward period available under the tax law.
Upon termination under these conditions, the Company may be required (under some of its reinsurance agreements) to return to the ceding company unearned premiums (net of ceding commissions) and loss reserves calculated on a statutory basis of accounting, attributable to reinsurance ceded pursuant to such agreements after which the Company would be released from liability with respect to the Assumed Business.
With respect to a significant portion of the Company’s in-force financial guaranty Assumed Business, based on AG Re's and AGC's current ratings and subject to the terms of each reinsurance agreement, the ceding company may have the right to recapture Assumed Business ceded to AG Re or AGC, respectively, and in most cases, assets representing the statutory
As of December 31, 2012, AG Re had posted $328 million of collateral in trust accounts for the benefit of third party ceding companies to secure its obligations under its reinsurance agreements, excluding contingency reserves. The equivalent amount for AGC is $147 million; AGC is not required to post collateral. On February 14, 2013, AG Re posted an additional $27 million of collateral due to the January 2013 downgrade by Moody's of its financial strength rating to Baa1. At December 31, 2012, the amount of additional ceding commission for AG Re was $8 million.
In addition to assumed and ceded reinsurance arrangements, the Company may also have exposure to some financial guaranty reinsurers (i.e., monolines) in other areas. Second-to-pay insured par outstanding represents transactions the Company has insured that were previously insured by other monolines. The Company underwrites such transactions based on the underlying insured obligation without regard to the primary insurer. Another area of exposure is in the investment portfolio where the Company holds fixed maturity securities that are wrapped by monolines and whose value may decline based on the rating of the monoline. At December 31, 2012, based on fair value, the Company had $667 million of fixed maturity securities in its investment portfolio wrapped by National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation, $517 million by Ambac Assurance Corporation ("Ambac") and $31 million by other guarantors.
On January 22, 2012, AGC and AGM entered into an aggregate excess of loss reinsurance facility, effective as of January 1, 2012. The facility cover losses occurring from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020. It terminates on January 1, 2014 unless AGC and AGM choose to extend it. The facility covers U.S. public finance credits insured or reinsured by AGC and AGM as of September 30, 2011, excluding credits that were rated non-investment grade as of December 31, 2011 by Moody’s or S&P or internally by AGC or AGM and subject to certain per credit limits. The facility attaches when AGC’s or AGM’s net losses (net of AGC’s and AGM other reinsurance, other than pooling reinsurance provided to AGM by AGM’s subsidiaries and net of recoveries) exceed in the aggregate $2 billion and covers a portion of the next $600 million of losses, with the reinsurers assuming pro rata in the aggregate $435 million of the $600 million of losses and AGC and AGM jointly retaining the remaining $165 million of losses. The reinsurers are required to be rated at least AA-(Stable Outlook) through December 31, 2014 or to post collateral sufficient to provide AGM and AGC with the same reinsurance credit as reinsurers rated AA-. AGM and AGC are obligated to pay the reinsurers their share of recoveries relating to losses during the coverage period in the covered portfolio. This obligation is secured by a pledge of the recoveries, which will be deposited into a trust for the benefit of the reinsurers. The Company has paid approximately $22 million of premiums during 2012. The remaining $22 million of premium was released from the trust to the reinsurers in the first quarter of 2013.
The Company leases and occupies space in New York City through April 2026. In addition, AGL and its subsidiaries lease additional office space in various locations under non-cancelable operating leases which expire at various dates through 2016. Rent expense was $10.0 million in 2012, $10.7 million in 2011 and $11.4 million in 2010.
Beginning in July 2008, AGM and various other financial guarantors were named in complaints filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, City and County of San Francisco. Since that time, plaintiffs’ counsel has filed amended complaints against AGM and AGC and added additional plaintiffs. As of the date of this filing, the plaintiffs with complaints against AGM and AGC, among other financial guaranty insurers, are: (a) City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; (b) City of Sacramento; (c) City of Los Angeles; (d) City of Oakland; (e) City of Riverside; (f) City of Stockton; (g) County of Alameda; (h) Contra Costa County; (i) County of San Mateo; (j) Los Angeles World Airports; (k) City of Richmond; (l) Redwood City; (m) East Bay Municipal Utility District; (n) Sacramento Suburban Water District; (o) City of San Jose; (p) County of Tulare; (q) The Regents of the University of California; (r) The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Riverside; (s) The Public Financing Authority of the City of Riverside; (t) The Jewish Community Center of San Francisco; (u) The San Jose Redevelopment Agency; (v) The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton; (w) The Public Financing Authority of the City of Stockton; and (x) The Olympic Club. Complaints filed by the City and County of San Francisco and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District were subsequently dismissed as to AGM and AGC. These complaints allege that the financial guaranty insurer defendants (i) participated in a conspiracy in violation of California’s antitrust laws to maintain a dual credit rating scale that misstated the credit default risk of municipal bond issuers and created market demand for municipal bond insurance, (ii) participated in risky financial transactions in other lines of business that damaged each insurer’s financial condition (thereby undermining the value of each of their guaranties), and (iii) failed to adequately disclose the impact of those transactions on their financial condition. In addition to their antitrust claims, various plaintiffs in these actions assert claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. At hearings held in July and October 2011 relating to AGM, AGC and the other defendants’ demurrer, the court overruled the demurrer on the following claims: breach of contract, violation of California’s antitrust statute and of its unfair business practices law, and fraud. The remaining claims were dismissed. On December 2, 2011, AGM, AGC and the other bond insurer defendants filed an anti-SLAPP (“Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”) motion to strike the complaints under California’s Code of Civil Procedure. On May 1, 2012, the court ruled in favor of the bond insurer defendants on the first stage of the anti-SLAPP motion as to the causes of action arising from the alleged conspiracy, but denied the motion as to those causes of action based on transaction specific representations and omissions about the bond insurer defendants’ credit ratings and financial health. The court has scheduled a hearing on the second stage of the anti-SLAPP motion for March 12, 2013. The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other expenses. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from these lawsuits.
On April 8, 2011, AG Re and AGC filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, requesting an order compelling Ambac to arbitrate Ambac’s disputes with AG Re and AGC concerning their obligations under reinsurance agreements with Ambac. In March 2010, Ambac placed a number of insurance policies that it had issued, including policies reinsured by AG Re and AGC pursuant to the reinsurance agreements, into a segregated account. The Wisconsin state court has approved a rehabilitation plan whereby permitted claims under the policies in the segregated account will be paid 25% in cash and 75% in surplus notes issued by the segregated account. Ambac has advised AG Re and AGC that it has and intends to continue to enter into commutation agreements with holders of policies issued by Ambac, and reinsured by AG Re and AGC, pursuant to which Ambac will pay a combination of cash and surplus notes to the policyholder. AG Re and AGC have informed Ambac that they believe their only current payment obligation with respect to the commutations arises from the cash payment, and that there is no obligation to pay any amounts in respect of the surplus notes until payments of principal or interest are made on such notes. Ambac has disputed this position on one commutation and may take a similar position on subsequent commutations. On April 15, 2011, attorneys for the Wisconsin Insurance Commissioner, as
The following is a description of legal proceedings involving AGMH’s former Financial Products Business. Although the Company did not acquire AGMH’s former Financial Products Business, which included AGMH’s former GIC business, medium term notes business and portions of the leveraged lease businesses, certain legal proceedings relating to those businesses are against entities that the Company did acquire. While Dexia SA and Dexia Crédit Local S.A. (“DCL”), jointly and severally, have agreed to indemnify the Company against liability arising out of the proceedings described below in the “-Proceedings Related to AGMH’s Former Financial Products Business” section, such indemnification might not be sufficient to fully hold the Company harmless against any injunctive relief or civil or criminal sanction that is imposed against AGMH or its subsidiaries.
AGMH received a subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice in November 2006 issued in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation of bid rigging of awards of municipal GICs and other municipal derivatives;
AGMH received a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the Philadelphia Regional Office of the SEC in February 2008 relating to the investigation concerning the bidding of municipal GICs and other municipal derivatives. The Wells Notice indicates that the SEC staff is considering recommending that the SEC authorize the staff to bring a civil injunctive action and/or institute administrative proceedings against AGMH, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act.
In July 2010, a former employee of AGM who had been involved in AGMH's former Financial Products Business was indicted along with two other persons with whom he had worked at Financial Guaranty Insurance Company. Such former employee and the other two persons were convicted on fraud conspiracy counts. They have appealed the convictions.
During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including GICs. These cases have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as MDL 1950, In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516 (“MDL 1950”).
Five of these cases named both AGMH and AGM: (a) Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School District, Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (d) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e) Washington County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. In April 2009, the MDL 1950 court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the federal claims, but granted leave for the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. In June 2009, interim lead plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint; although the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint currently describes some of AGMH’s and AGM’s activities, it does not name those entities as defendants. In March 2010, the MDL 1950 court denied the named defendants’ motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits.
In May 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in five additional non-class action cases filed in federal court in California: (a) City of Richmond, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California); (b) City of Redwood City, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California); (c) Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 21, 2010, N.D. California); (d) East Bay Municipal Utility District, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California); and (e) City of San Jose and the San Jose Redevelopment Agency, California v. Bank of America, N.A (filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California). These cases have also been transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings. In September 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in a sixth additional non-class action filed in federal court in New York, but which alleges violation of New York’s Donnelly Act in addition to federal antitrust law: Active Retirement Community, Inc. d/b/a Jefferson’s Ferry v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on September 21, 2010, E.D. New York), which has also been transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings. In December 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in a seventh additional non-class action filed in federal court in the Central District of California, Los Angeles Unified School District v. Bank of America, N.A., and in an eighth additional non-class action filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, Kendal on Hudson, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. These cases also have been consolidated with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings. The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other expenses. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits.
Long-term debt is recorded at principal amounts net of any unamortized original issue discount or premium and unamortized AGMH Acquisition date fair value adjustment for AGMH debt. Discount is accreted into interest expense over the life of the applicable debt.
8.5% Senior Notes. On June 24, 2009, AGL issued 3,450,000 equity units for net proceeds of approximately $167 million in a registered public offering. The net proceeds of the offering were used to pay a portion of the consideration for the AGMH Acquisition. Each equity unit consisted of (i) a 5% undivided beneficial ownership interest in $1,000 principal amount of 8.5% senior notes due 2014 issued by AGUS and (ii) a forward purchase contract obligating the holders to purchase $50 of AGL common shares in June 2012. On June 1, 2012, the Company completed the remarketing of the $173 million aggregate principal amount of 8.5% Senior Notes; AGUS purchased all of the Senior Notes in the remarketing at a price of 100% of the principal amount thereof, and retired all of such notes on June 1, 2012. The proceeds from the remarketing were used to satisfy the obligations of the holders of the Equity Units to purchase AGL common shares pursuant to the forward purchase contract. Accordingly, on June 1, 2012, AGL issued 3.8924 common shares to holders of each Equity Unit, which represented a settlement rate of 3.8685 common shares plus certain anti-dilution adjustments, or an aggregate of 13,428,770 common shares at approximately $12.85 per share. The Equity Units ceased to exist when the forward purchase contracts were settled on June 1, 2012.
Series A Enhanced Junior Subordinated Debentures. On December 20, 2006, AGUS issued $150 million of the Debentures due 2066. The Debentures pay a fixed 6.40% rate of interest until December 15, 2016, and thereafter pay a floating rate of interest, reset quarterly, at a rate equal to three month LIBOR plus a margin equal to 2.38%. AGUS may select at 1.0 or more times to defer payment of interest for one or more consecutive periods for up to ten years. Any unpaid interest bears interest at the then applicable rate. AGUS may not defer interest past the maturity date.
Notes Payable represent debt, issued by special purpose entities consolidated by AGM, to the former AGMH subsidiaries that conducted AGMH’s Financial Products Business (the “Financial Products Companies”) transferred to Dexia Holdings Inc. prior to the AGMH Acquisition. The funds borrowed were used to finance the purchase of the underlying obligations of AGM-insured obligations which had breached triggers allowing AGM to exercise its right to accelerate payment of a claim in order to mitigate loss. The assets purchased are classified as assets acquired in refinancing transactions and recorded in “other invested assets.” The tenor of the notes payable matches the tenor of the assets.
As a result of the January 2013 Moody's downgrade of AGM, all the leveraged lease transactions in which AGM acts as strip coverage provider are currently breaching a ratings trigger related to AGM. If early termination of the leases were to occur and the tax-exempt entities do not make the required early termination payments, then AGM would be exposed to possible liquidity claims on gross exposure of approximately $1.7 billion as of December 31, 2012. To date, none of the
leveraged lease transactions that involve AGM has experienced an early termination due to a lease default and a claim on the AGM guaranty. It is difficult to determine the probability that the Company will have to pay strip provider claims or the likely aggregate amount of such claims. At December 31, 2012, approximately $947 million of cumulative strip par exposure had been terminated since 2008 on a consensual basis. The consensual terminations have resulted in no claims on AGM.
As of December 31, 2012, no amounts were outstanding under this facility, nor have there been any borrowings during the life of this facility.
As of December 31, 2012 no amounts were outstanding under this facility nor have there been any borrowings during the life of this facility.
On April 8, 2005, AGC entered into separate agreements (the “Put Agreements”) with four custodial trusts (each, a “Custodial Trust”) pursuant to which AGC may, at its option, cause each of the Custodial Trusts to purchase up to $50 million of perpetual preferred stock of AGC (the “AGC Preferred Stock”). The custodial trusts were created as a vehicle for providing
capital support to AGC by allowing AGC to obtain immediate access to new capital at its sole discretion at any time through the exercise of the put option. If the put options were exercised, AGC would receive $200 million in return for the issuance of its own perpetual preferred stock, the proceeds of which may be used for any purpose, including the payment of claims. The put options have not been exercised through the date of this filing. Initially, all of AGC CCS were issued to a special purpose pass-through trust (the “Pass-Through Trust”). The Pass-Through Trust was dissolved in April 2008 and the AGC CCS were distributed to the holders of the Pass-Through Trust’s securities. Neither the Pass-Through Trust nor the custodial trusts are consolidated in the Company’s financial statements.
In June 2003, $200 million of “AGM CPS Securities”, money market preferred trust securities, were issued by trusts created for the primary purpose of issuing the AGM CPS Securities, investing the proceeds in high-quality commercial paper and selling put options to AGM, allowing AGM to issue the trusts non-cumulative redeemable perpetual preferred stock (the “AGM Preferred Stock”) of AGM in exchange for cash. There are four trusts, each with an initial aggregate face amount of $50 million. These trusts hold auctions every 28 days, at which time investors submit bid orders to purchase AGM CPS Securities. If AGM were to exercise a put option, the applicable trust would transfer the portion of the proceeds attributable to principal received upon maturity of its assets, net of expenses, to AGM in exchange for AGM Preferred Stock. AGM pays a floating put premium to the trusts, which represents the difference between the commercial paper yield and the winning auction rate (plus all fees and expenses of the trust). If an auction does not attract sufficient clearing bids, however, the auction rate is subject to a maximum rate of one-month LIBOR plus 200 basis points for the next succeeding distribution period. Beginning in August 2007, the AGM CPS Securities required the maximum rate for each of the relevant trusts. AGM continues to have the ability to exercise its put option and cause the related trusts to purchase AGM Preferred Stock. The trusts provide AGM access to new capital at its sole discretion through the exercise of the put options. As of December 31, 2012 the put option had not been exercised. The Company does not consider itself to be the primary beneficiary of the trusts. See Note 8, Fair Value Measurement, -Other Assets-Committed Capital Securities, for a fair value measurement discussion.
Company has an authorized share capital of $5 million divided into 500,000,000 shares, par value $0.01 per share. Except as described below, the Company's common shares have no preemptive rights or other rights to subscribe for additional common shares, no rights of redemption, conversion or exchange and no sinking fund rights. In the event of liquidation, dissolution or winding-up, the holders of the Company's common shares are entitled to share equally, in proportion to the number of common shares held by such holder, in the Company's assets, if any remain after the payment of all the Company's liabilities and the liquidation preference of any outstanding preferred shares. Under certain circumstances, the Company has the right to purchase all or a portion of the shares held by a shareholder at fair market value. All of the common shares are fully paid and non assessable. Holders of the Company's common shares are entitled to receive dividends as lawfully may be declared from time to time by the Company's Board of Directors.
On January 18, 2013, the Company's Board of Directors authorized a $200 million share repurchase program. This latest repurchase program replaces the November 14, 2011 5.0 million common shares authorization.
In August 2011, the Chief Executive Officer and the General Counsel of the Company elected to invest a portion of their accounts under the Company's SERP in 138,375 units in the employer stock fund in the SERP. Each unit in the employer stock fund represents the right to receive one AGL common share upon a distribution from the SERP. The 138,375 units equals the number of AGL common shares which could have been purchased with the value of the account deemed invested in the employer stock fund as of the date of such election. The election to invest in the employer stock fund is irrevocable (i.e., any portion of a SERP account allocated to the employer stock fund and invested in units shall remain allocated to the employer stock fund until the participant receives a distribution from SERP). At the same time such investment elections were made, in August 2011, the Company purchased 138,375 AGL common shares and placed such shares in trust to be distributed to the Chief Executive Officer and the General Counsel upon a distribution from the SERP in settlement of their units invested in the employer stock fund. The Company recorded the purchase of such shares in “deferred equity compensation” in the consolidated balance sheet.
On February 7, 2013, the Company declared a quarterly dividend of $0.10 per common share, an increase of 11% from a quarterly dividend of $0.09 per common share paid in 2012. On February 9, 2012, the Company declared a quarterly dividend of $0.09 per common share, an increase of 100% from a quarterly dividend of $0.045 per common share paid in 2011 and 2010.
Share-based compensation expense is based on the grant date fair value using grant date closing price, the Black-Scholes pricing model or Monte Carlo pricing model. The Company amortizes the fair value of share-based awards on a straight-line basis over the requisite service periods of the awards, which are generally the vesting periods, with the exception of retirement-eligible employees. For retirement-eligible employees, certain awards contain retirement provisions and therefore are amortized over the period through the date the employee first becomes eligible to retire and is no longer required to provide service to earn part or all of the award.
Under the Assured Guaranty Ltd. 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Incentive Plan”), the number of common shares that may be delivered under the Incentive Plan may not exceed 10,970,000. In the event of certain transactions affecting the Company's common shares, the number or type of shares subject to the Incentive Plan, the number and type of shares subject to outstanding awards under the Incentive Plan, and the exercise price of awards under the Incentive Plan, may be adjusted.
The Incentive Plan is administered by a committee of the Board of Directors. The Compensation Committee of the Board serves as this committee except as otherwise determined by the Board. The Board may amend or terminate the Incentive Plan. As of December 31, 2012, 2,565,007 common shares were available for grant under the Incentive Plan.
As of December 31, 2012 the total unrecognized compensation expense related to outstanding nonvested stock options was $0.4 million, which will be adjusted in the future for the difference between estimated and actual forfeitures. The Company expects to recognize that expense over the weighted average remaining service period of 1.4 years.
rate is based on the rate used by the Company's guideline companies, since the Company has insufficient forfeiture data. Estimated forfeitures will be reassessed at each grant vesting date and may change based on new facts and circumstances.