e8vk
Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549


FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934


     
Date of Report
   
(Date of earliest
   
event reported):
  July 14, 2004

MGIC Investment Corporation


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
         
Wisconsin
(State or other
jurisdiction of
incorporation)
  1-10816
(Commission File
Number)
  39-1486475
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)

MGIC Plaza, 250 East Kilbourn Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202


(Address of principal executive offices including zip code)

(414) 347-6480


(Registrant’s telephone number)



 


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits
Item 12. Results of Operations and Financial Condition
SIGNATURES
INDEX TO EXHIBITS


Table of Contents

Item 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits

     (c) Exhibits

Pursuant to General Instruction B.6 to Form 8-K, the Company’s July 14, 2004 press release is furnished as Exhibit 99 and is not filed.

Item 12. Results of Operations and Financial Condition

The Company issued a press release on July 14, 2004 announcing its results of operations for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2004 and certain other information. The press release is furnished as Exhibit 99.

 


Table of Contents

SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

         
  MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION
 
 
Date: July 14, 2004  By:   \s\ Joseph J. Komanecki    
    Joseph J. Komanecki   
    Senior Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer   
 

 


Table of Contents

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

     
Exhibit
Number
  Description of Exhibit
99
  Press Release dated July 14, 2004. (Pursuant to General Instruction B.6 to Form 8-K, this press release is furnished and is not filed.)

 

exv99
 

Exhibit 99

        (MGIC LOGO)

(NEWS RELEASE LOGO)

     
Investor Contact:
  Michael J. Zimmerman, Investor Relations, (414) 347-6596, mike_zimmerman@mgic.com
Media Contact:
  Geoffrey F. Cooper, Corporate Relations, (414) 347-2681, geoffrey_cooper@mgic.com

MGIC Investment Corporation
Second Quarter Net Income of $154.5 Million

MILWAUKEE (July 14, 2004) — MGIC Investment Corporation (NYSE:MTG) today reported net income for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 of $154.5 million, compared with the $143.8 million for the same quarter a year ago. Diluted earnings per share were $1.56 for the quarter ending June 30, 2004, compared to $1.46 for the same quarter a year ago.

Net income for the first six months of 2004 was $284.6 million, compared with $284.9 million for the same period last year. For the first six months of 2004, diluted earnings per share was $2.87 compared with $2.87 for the same period last year.

Curt S. Culver, president and chief executive officer of MGIC Investment Corporation and Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC), said that the lack of growth of insurance in force has continued to negatively impact earned premiums. As a result, we expect earned premiums to be challenged for the balance of the year. However, we remain encouraged by the credit loss development.

Total revenues for the second quarter were $403.1 million, down 6.7 percent from $432.1 million in the second quarter of 2003. The decline in revenues resulted primarily from a 1.8 percent decrease in net premiums earned, to $331.1 million. Net premiums written for the quarter were $319.1 million, compared with $320.5 million in the second quarter last year.

New insurance written in the second quarter was $16.1 billion, compared to $25.4 billion in the second quarter of 2003. New insurance written for the quarter included $2.9 billion of bulk business compared with $6.6 billion in the same period last year. New insurance written in the first six months of 2004 was $29.1 billion versus $49.5 billion for the same period last year and includes $5.0 billion of bulk business versus $13.3 billion in the same period last year.

Persistency, or the percentage of insurance remaining inforce from one year prior, was 53.8 percent at June 30, 2004, compared with 47.1 percent at December 31, 2003, and 49.8 percent at June 30, 2003. As of June 30, 2004, MGIC’s primary insurance inforce was $180.4 billion, compared with $189.6 billion at December 31, 2003, and $193.6 billion at June 30, 2003. The book value of MGIC Investment Corporation’s investment portfolio was $5.4 billion at June 30, 2004, compared with $5.2 billion at December 31, 2003, and $5.0 billion at June 30, 2003.

 


 

At June 30, 2004, the percentage of loans that were delinquent, excluding bulk loans, was 3.58 percent, compared with 3.76 percent at December 31, 2003, and 3.38 percent at June 30, 2003. Including bulk loans, the percentage of loans that were delinquent at June 30, 2004 was 5.55 percent, compared to 5.57 percent at December 31, 2003, and 4.95 percent at June 30, 2003.

Losses incurred in the second quarter were $154.1 million, down from $173.1 million reported for the same period last year due primarily to a lower growth rate of the delinquency inventory. Underwriting expenses were $73.6 million in the second quarter, down from $80.1 million reported for the same period last year due to decreases in underwriting volumes.

About MGIC

MGIC (www.mgic.com), the principal subsidiary of MGIC Investment Corporation, is the nation’s leading provider of private mortgage insurance coverage with $180.4 billion primary insurance inforce covering 1.47 million mortgages as of June 30, 2004. MGIC serves 5,000 lenders with locations across the country and in Puerto Rico, helping families achieve homeownership sooner by making affordable low-down-payment mortgages a reality.

Webcast Details

As previously announced, MGIC Investment Corporation will hold a webcast today at 10 a.m. ET to allow securities analysts and shareholders the opportunity to hear management discuss the company’s quarterly results. The call is being webcast and can be accessed at the company’s website at www.mgic.com. The webcast is also being distributed over CCBN’s Investor Distribution Network to both institutional and individual investors. Investors can listen to the call through CCBN’s individual investor center at www.companyboardroom.com or by visiting any of the investor sites in CCBN’s Individual Investor Network. The webcast will be available for replay through August 14, 2004.

This press release, which includes certain additional statistical and other information, including non-GAAP financial information, is available on the Company’s website at www.mgic.com under “Investor — News and Financials — News Releases.”

Safe Harbor Statement

Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors:

The Company’s revenues and expenses could be affected by the risk factors discussed below. These factors may also cause actual results to differ materially from the results contemplated by forward looking statements that the Company may make. Forward looking statements consist of statements which relate to matters other than historical fact. Among others, statements that include words such as the Company “believes,” “anticipates” or “expects,” or words of similar import, are forward looking statements. The Company is not undertaking any obligation to update any forward looking statements it may make.

As the domestic economy deteriorates, more homeowners may default and the Company’s losses may increase.

Losses result from events that reduce a borrower’s ability to continue to make mortgage payments, such as unemployment, and whether the home of a borrower who defaults on his mortgage can be sold for an amount that will cover unpaid principal and interest and the expenses of the sale. Favorable economic conditions

 


 

generally reduce the likelihood that borrowers will lack sufficient income to pay their mortgages and also favorably affect the value of homes, thereby reducing and in some cases even eliminating a loss from a mortgage default. A deterioration in economic conditions generally increases the likelihood that borrowers will not have sufficient income to pay their mortgages and can also adversely affect housing values.

The mix of business the Company writes also affects the likelihood of losses occurring. In recent years, a greater percentage of the Company’s volume than in the past has included segments that the Company views as having a higher probability of claim, including loans with LTV ratios over 95%, FICO credit scores below 620 or limited underwriting, including limited borrower documentation. In response to lower national origination volume in 2004 compared to 2003, mortgage lenders may seek to maintain their own volume through a greater focus on lending to borrowers in segments that the Company views as having a higher probability of claim.

Approximately 8% of the Company’s risk in force written through the flow channel, and more than half of the Company’s risk in force written through the bulk channel, consists of ARMs. The Company believes that during a prolonged period of rising interest rates, claims on ARMs would be substantially higher than for fixed rate loans, although the performance of ARMs has not been tested in such an environment.

The performance of the servicing function on a mortgage loan, particularly a subprime loan, can affect the likelihood that the loan will default as well as the loss resulting from a default. The Company believes Select Portfolio Servicing f/k/a Fairbanks Capital Corp. (“Fairbanks”) is the servicer of approximately 1.2% of the loans insured by the Company and approximately 5.7% of the loans insured by the Company written through the bulk channel (a substantial number of which are subprime). The servicer ratings assigned to Fairbanks by Moody’s and S&P were downgraded to “below average” during the second quarter of 2003 due in part to concerns expressed by those rating agencies about Fairbanks’ regulatory compliance and operational controls. In the second quarter of 2004, these rating agencies raised Fairbanks’ service ratings to “average.”

Competition or changes in the Company’s relationships with its customers could reduce the Company’s revenues or increase its losses.

Competition for private mortgage insurance premiums occurs not only among private mortgage insurers but also with mortgage lenders through captive mortgage reinsurance transactions. In these transactions, a lender’s affiliate reinsures a portion of the insurance written by a private mortgage insurer on mortgages originated or serviced by the lender.

The level of competition within the private mortgage insurance industry has also increased as many large mortgage lenders have reduced the number of private mortgage insurers with whom they do business. At the same time, consolidation among mortgage lenders has increased the share of the mortgage lending market held by large lenders.

Our private mortgage insurance competitors include:

    PMI Mortgage Insurance Company
 
    Genworth Financial f/k/a/ GE Capital Mortgage Insurance Corporation
 
    United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company
 
    Radian Guaranty Inc.
 
    Republic Mortgage Insurance Company
 
    Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation
 
    CMG Mortgage Insurance Company

Assured Guaranty Limited f/k/a/ AGC Holdings Limited, a financial guaranty company whose mortgage insurance business is primarily reinsurance, has announced that it intends to write investment grade mortgage guaranty insurance on a direct basis.

 


 

If interest rates decline, house prices appreciate or mortgage insurance cancellation requirements change, the length of time that our policies remain in force could decline and result in declines in our revenue.

In each year, most of the Company’s premiums are from insurance that has been written in prior years. As a result, the length of time insurance remains in force (which is also generally referred to as persistency) is an important determinant of revenues. The factors affecting the length of time the Company’s insurance remains in force include:

    the level of current mortgage interest rates compared to the mortgage coupon rates on the insurance in force, which affects the vulnerability of the insurance in force to refinancings, and
 
    mortgage insurance cancellation policies of mortgage investors along with the rate of home price appreciation experienced by the homes underlying the mortgages in the insurance in force.

During the 1990s, the Company’s year-end persistency ranged from a high of 87.4% at December 31, 1990 to a low of 68.1% at December 31, 1998. At June 30, 2004 persistency was at 53.8%, which was an improvement over the record low of 44.9% at September 30, 2003. Over the past several years, refinancing has become easier to accomplish and less costly for many consumers. Hence, even in an interest rate environment favorable to persistency improvement, the Company does not expect persistency will approach its December 31, 1990 level.

If the volume of low down payment home mortgage originations declines, the amount of insurance that the Company writes could decline which would reduce the Company’s revenues.

The factors that affect the volume of low down payment mortgage originations include:

    the level of home mortgage interest rates,
 
    the health of the domestic economy as well as conditions in regional and local economies,
 
    housing affordability,
 
    population trends, including the rate of household formation,
 
    the rate of home price appreciation, which in times of heavy refinancing can affect whether refinance loans have loan-to-value ratios that require private mortgage insurance, and
 
    government housing policy encouraging loans to first-time homebuyers.

In general, the majority of the underwriting profit (premium revenue minus losses) that a book of mortgage insurance generates occurs in the early years of the book, with the largest portion of the underwriting profit realized in the first year. Subsequent years of a book generally result in modest underwriting profit or underwriting losses. This pattern of results occurs because relatively few of the claims that a book will ultimately experience occur in the first few years of the book, when premium revenue is highest, while subsequent years are affected by declining premium revenues, as persistency decreases due to loan prepayments, and higher losses.

 


 

If all other things were equal, a decline in new insurance written in a year that followed a number of years of higher volume could result in a lower contribution to the mortgage insurer’s overall results. This effect may occur because the older books will be experiencing declines in revenue and increases in losses with a lower amount of underwriting profit on the new book available to offset these results.

Whether such a lower contribution would in fact occur depends in part on the extent of the volume decline. Even with a substantial decline in volume, there may be offsetting factors that could increase the contribution in the current year. These offsetting factors include higher persistency and a mix of business with higher average premiums, which could have the effect of increasing revenues, and improvements in the economy, which could have the effect of reducing losses. In addition, the effect on the insurer’s overall results from such a lower contribution may be offset by decreases in the mortgage insurer’s expenses that are unrelated to claim or default activity, including those related to lower volume.

The Company’s new insurance written during 2001 — 2003 was $86.1 billion, $92.5 billion and $96.8 billion, respectively and was $49.5 billion and $29.1 billion in the first half of 2003 and 2004, respectively. Consistent with a mid-June 2004 mortgage finance forecast of the Mortgage Bankers Association, which projects that quarterly mortgage originations in the United States are expected to decline materially in 2004 compared to 2003, the Company expects new insurance written for the last two quarters of 2004 will be materially lower than for the comparable period in 2003.

The amount of insurance the Company writes could be adversely affected if lenders and investors select alternatives to private mortgage insurance.

These alternatives to private mortgage insurance include:

    lenders structuring mortgage originations to avoid private mortgage insurance, such as a first mortgage with an 80% loan-to-value ratio and a second mortgage with a 10%, 15% or 20% loan-to-value ratio (referred to as an 80-10-10, 80-15-5 or 80-20 loans, respectively) rather than a first mortgage with a 90%, 95% or 100% loan-to-value ratio,
 
    investors holding mortgages in portfolio and self-insuring,
 
    investors using credit enhancements other than private mortgage insurance or using other credit enhancements in conjunction with reduced levels of private mortgage insurance coverage, and
 
    lenders using government mortgage insurance programs, including those of the Federal Housing Administration and the Veterans Administration.

While no data is publicly available, the Company believes that 80-10-10 loans and related products are a significant percentage of mortgage originations and that their use, which the Company believes is primarily by borrowers with higher credit scores, continues to increase.

Changes in the business practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could reduce the Company’s revenues or increase its losses.

The business practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affect the entire relationship between them and mortgage insurers and include:

    the level of private mortgage insurance coverage, subject to the limitations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s charters, when private mortgage insurance is used as the required credit enhancement on low down payment mortgages,

 


 

    whether Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac influence the mortgage lender’s selection of the mortgage insurer providing coverage and, if so, any transactions that are related to that selection,
 
    whether Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac will give mortgage lenders an incentive, such as a reduced guaranty fee, to select a mortgage insurer that has a “AAA” claims-paying ability rating to benefit from the lower capital requirements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when a mortgage is insured by a company with that rating,
 
    the underwriting standards that determine what loans are eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which thereby affect the quality of the risk insured by the mortgage insurer and the availability of mortgage loans,
 
    the terms on which mortgage insurance coverage can be canceled before reaching the cancellation thresholds established by law, and
 
    the circumstances in which mortgage servicers must perform activities intended to avoid or mitigate loss on insured mortgages that are delinquent.

The mortgage insurance industry is subject to litigation risk.

Consumers are bringing a growing number of lawsuits against home mortgage lenders and settlement service providers. In recent years, seven mortgage insurers, including the Company’s MGIC subsidiary, have been involved in litigation alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA. MGIC’s settlement of litigation against it under RESPA became final in October 2003. There can be no assurance that MGIC will not be subject to future litigation under RESPA.

In March 2003 an action against MGIC was filed in Federal District Court in Orlando, Florida seeking certification of a nationwide class of consumers who were required to pay for private mortgage insurance written by MGIC and whose loans were insured at less than MGIC’s “best available rate” based on credit scores obtained by MGIC. (A portion of MGIC’s A minus and subprime premium rates are based in part on the credit score of the borrower.) The action alleges that the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) requires a notice to borrowers of such “adverse action” and that MGIC has violated FCRA by failing to give such notice. The action seeks statutory damages (which in the case of willful violations, in addition to punitive damages, may be awarded in an amount of $100 to $1,000 per class member) and/or actual damages of the persons in the class, and attorneys fees, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. The action also alleges that the failure to give notice to borrowers in Florida in the circumstances alleged is a violation of Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Act and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for such violation. In December 2003, the Court denied MGIC’s motion seeking dismissal of the portion of the case covering damages under FCRA but dismissed the remainder of the case. In late June 2004, the Court denied the plaintiffs motion to certify the class. There can be no assurance that the outcome of the litigation will not materially affect the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Similar actions have been filed against six other mortgage insurers.

Net premiums written could be adversely affected if the Department of Housing and Urban Development reproposes and adopts a regulation under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act that is equivalent to a proposed regulation that was recently withdrawn.

The regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act prohibit paying lenders for the referral of settlement services, including mortgage insurance, and prohibit lenders from receiving such payments. In July 2002, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a regulation that would exclude from these anti-referral fee provisions settlement services included in a package of settlement services offered to a borrower at a guaranteed price. HUD withdrew this proposed regulation in March 2004. Under the proposed regulation, if mortgage insurance was

 


 

required on a loan, the package must include any mortgage insurance premium paid at settlement. Although certain state insurance regulations prohibit an insurer’s payment of referral fees, had this regulation been adopted in this form, the Company’s revenues could have been adversely affected to the extent that lenders offered such packages and received value from the Company in excess of what they could have received were the anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act to apply and if such state regulations were not applied to prohibit such payments.

 


 

MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS

                                 
    Three Months Ended June 30,
  Six Months Ended June 30,
    2004
  2003
  2004
  2003
    (in thousands of dollars, except per share data)
Net premiums written
  $ 319,126     $ 320,522     $ 648,188     $ 662,088  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
Net premiums earned
  $ 331,128     $ 337,135     $ 672,644     $ 669,291  
Investment income
    52,314       50,314       105,455       101,397  
Realized gains
    5,932       21,044       15,253       26,635  
Other revenue
    13,775       23,594       25,236       43,260  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
Total revenues
    403,149       432,087       818,588       840,583  
Losses and expenses:
                               
Losses incurred
    154,073       173,120       344,750       315,331  
Underwriting, other expenses
    73,638       80,147       141,822       155,084  
Interest expense
    10,202       10,290       20,450       20,701  
Ceding commission
    (915 )     (926 )     (1,785 )     (1,580 )
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
Total losses and expenses
    236,998       262,631       505,237       489,536  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
Income before tax and joint ventures
    166,151       169,456       313,351       351,047  
Provision for income tax
    46,430       44,671       86,561       95,445  
Income from joint ventures, net of tax
    34,803       18,992       57,807       29,285  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
Net income
  $ 154,524     $ 143,777     $ 284,597     $ 284,887  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding
(Shares in thousands)
    99,264       98,781       99,233       99,202  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
Diluted earnings per share
  $ 1.56     $ 1.46     $ 2.87     $ 2.87  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 

NOTE: See “Certain Non-GAAP Financial Measures” for diluted earnings per share contribution from realized gains and C-BASS.

MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF

                         
    June 30,   December 31,   June 30,
    2004
  2003
  2003
    (in thousands of dollars, except per share data)
ASSETS
                       
Investments (1)
  $ 5,352,942     $ 5,205,161     $ 4,962,236  
Cash
    5,375       23,612       7,147  
Reinsurance recoverable on loss reserves (2)
    17,029       18,074       19,406  
Prepaid reinsurance premiums
    6,947       7,528       7,472  
Home office and equipment, net
    35,867       36,722       37,290  
Deferred insurance policy acquisition costs
    31,512       32,613       32,832  
Other assets
    605,321       593,677       516,815  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
 
 
  $ 6,054,993     $ 5,917,387     $ 5,583,198  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
 
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
                       
Liabilities:
                       
Loss reserves (2)
    1,123,863       1,061,788       861,107  
Unearned premiums
    143,100       168,137       162,255  
Short- and long-term debt
    599,768       599,680       603,215  
Other liabilities
    215,474       290,880       324,783  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
 
Total liabilities
    2,082,205       2,120,485       1,951,360  
Shareholders’ equity
    3,972,788       3,796,902       3,631,838  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
 
 
  $ 6,054,993     $ 5,917,387     $ 5,583,198  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
 
Book value per share
  $ 40.30     $ 38.58     $ 36.88  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
 
(1) Investments include unrealized gains on securities marked to market pursuant to FAS 115
    65,944       228,061       302,541  
(2) Loss reserves, net of reinsurance recoverable on loss reserves
    1,106,834       1,043,714       841,701  

 


 

CERTAIN NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES

                                 
    Three Months Ended June 30,
  Six Months Ended June 30,
    2004
  2003
  2004
  2003
    (in thousands of dollars, except per share data)
Diluted earnings per share contribution from realized gains:
                               
Realized gains
  $ 5,932     $ 21,044     $ 15,253     $ 26,635  
Income taxes at 35%
    2,076       7,365       5,339       9,322  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
After tax realized gains
    3,856       13,679       9,914       17,313  
Weighted average shares
    99,264       98,781       99,233       99,202  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
Diluted EPS contribution from realized gains
  $ 0.04     $ 0.14     $ 0.10     $ 0.17  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
Diluted earnings per share contribution from the company’s C-BASS joint venture:
                               
C-BASS contribution
  $ 34,260     $ 21,303     $ 55,663     $ 31,075  
Income taxes at 35%
    11,991       7,456       19,482       10,876  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
After tax C-BASS contribution
    22,269       13,847       36,181       20,199  
Weighted average shares
    99,264       98,781       99,233       99,202  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
Diluted EPS contribution from C-BASS
  $ 0.22     $ 0.14     $ 0.36     $ 0.20  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 

Management believes the diluted earnings per share contribution from realized gains provides useful information to investors because it shows the after-tax effect that sales of securities from the Company’s investment portfolio, which are discretionary transactions, had on earnings. Management believes the diluted earnings per share contribution from C-BASS provides useful information to investors because it shows the after-tax contribution from this joint venture, which is not controlled by the Company, to earnings.

OTHER INFORMATION

                                 
New primary insurance written (“NIW”) ($ millions)
  $ 16,141     $ 25,405     $ 29,054     $ 49,525  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
New risk written ($ millions):
                               
Primary
  $ 4,188     $ 6,676     $ 7,587     $ 12,964  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
Pool (1)
  $ 51     $ 201     $ 98     $ 485  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
Product mix as a % of primary NIW
                               
95% LTVs
    31 %     31 %     32 %     31 %
ARMs
    13 %     6 %     12 %     7 %
Refinances
    33 %     50 %     34 %     51 %
Net paid claims ($ millions)
                               
Flow
  $ 66     $ 40     $ 134     $ 84  
Bulk (2)
    54       36       108       65  
Second mortgage
    4       8       9       14  
Other
    16       13       31       23  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
 
  $ 140     $ 97     $ 282     $ 186  
 
   
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 


(1)   Represents contractual aggregate loss limits and, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, for $251 million, $568 million, $645 million and $1,379 million, respectively, of risk without such limits, risk is calculated at $13 million, $27 million, $35 million and $79 million, respectively, the estimated amount that would credit enhance these loans to a ‘AA’ level based on a rating agency model.
 
(2)   Bulk loans are those that are part of a negotiated transaction between the lender and the mortgage insurer.

 


 

OTHER INFORMATION

                         
    As of
    June 30,   December 31,   June 30,
    2004
  2003
  2003
Direct Primary Insurance In Force ($ millions)
    180,442       189,632       193,579  
Direct Primary Risk In Force ($ millions)
    46,472       48,658       49,170  
Direct Pool Risk In Force ($ millions) (1)
    2,954       2,895       3,098  
Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation — Risk-to-capital ratio
    7.2:1       8.1:1       8.4:1  
Primary Insurance:
                       
Insured Loans
    1,468,621       1,551,331       1,609,284  
Persistency
    53.8 %     47.1 %     49.8 %
Total loans delinquent
    81,490       86,372       79,671  
Percentage of loans delinquent (delinquency rate)
    5.55 %     5.57 %     4.95 %
Loans delinquent excluding bulk loans
    41,532       45,259       42,934  
Percentage of loans delinquent excluding bulk loans (delinquency rate)
    3.58 %     3.76 %     3.38 %
Bulk loans delinquent
    39,958       41,113       36,737  
Percentage of bulk loans delinquent (delinquency rate)
    12.89 %     11.80 %     10.78 %
A-minus and subprime credit loans delinquent (2)
    33,822       34,525       30,525  
Percentage of A-minus and subprime credit loans delinquent (delinquency rate)
    15.07 %     14.14 %     13.04 %


(1)   Represents contractual aggregate loss limits and, at June 30, 2004, December 31, 2003 and June 30, 2003, respectively, for $4.7 billion, $4.9 billion and $3.8 billion of risk without such limits, risk is calculated at $380 million, $353 million and $241 million, the estimated amounts that would credit enhance these loans to ‘AA’ level based on a rating agency model.
 
(2)   A-minus and subprime credit is included in flow, bulk and total.

 


 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

                                                                         
    Q2 2002
  Q3 2002
  Q4 2002
  Q1 2003
  Q2 2003
  Q3 2003
  Q4 2003
  Q1 2004
  Q2 2004
Insurance inforce
                                                                       
Flow ($ bil)
  $ 159.4     $ 160.8     $ 158.5     $ 154.9     $ 150.3     $ 145.7     $ 144.8     $ 143.0     $ 140.6  
Bulk ($ bil)
  $ 35.1     $ 35.8     $ 38.5     $ 40.8     $ 43.3     $ 45.3     $ 44.8     $ 42.3     $ 39.8  
Risk inforce
                                                                       
% Prime (FICO 620 & >)
    85.8 %     85.5 %     84.9 %     83.8 %     82.9 %     82.2 %     82.4 %     83.0 %     83.7 %
% A minus (FICO 575 - 619)(1)
    n/a       9.9 %     10.4 %     11.2 %     12.0 %     12.6 %     12.6 %     12.3 %     11.8 %
% Subprime (FICO < 575)(1)
    n/a       4.6 %     4.7 %     5.0 %     5.1 %     5.2 %     5.0 %     4.7 %     4.5 %
New insurance written
                                                                       
Flow ($ bil)
  $ 16.1     $ 17.4     $ 19.5     $ 17.4     $ 18.8     $ 20.7     $ 14.2     $ 10.8     $ 13.2  
Bulk ($ bil)
  $ 5.7     $ 4.5     $ 5.8     $ 6.7     $ 6.6     $ 7.3     $ 5.1     $ 2.1     $ 2.9  
Average loan size of Insurance in force (000’s)
                                                                       
Flow
  $ 115.5     $ 116.5     $ 117.0     $ 117.6     $ 118.4     $ 119.4     $ 120.4     $ 120.9     $ 121.4  
Bulk
  $ 130.9     $ 128.3     $ 127.5     $ 127.3     $ 127.2     $ 128.1     $ 128.4     $ 127.8     $ 128.3  
Average Coverage Rate of Insurance in force
                                                                       
Flow
    23.8 %     23.9 %     24.2 %     24.1 %     24.4 %     24.6 %     24.8 %     24.4 %     24.5 %
Bulk
    23.2 %     23.8 %     24.7 %     25.9 %     27.1 %     28.2 %     29.0 %     30.2 %     30.1 %
Paid Losses (000’s)
                                                                       
Average severity flow
  $ 19.5     $ 20.3     $ 22.1     $ 23.6     $ 23.5     $ 22.9     $ 23.8     $ 25.0     $ 25.0  
Average severity bulk
  $ 19.7     $ 19.1     $ 19.2     $ 21.8     $ 21.9     $ 22.0     $ 23.4     $ 22.8     $ 22.7  
Average severity total
  $ 19.6     $ 19.7     $ 20.9     $ 22.9     $ 22.7     $ 22.5     $ 23.6     $ 24.0     $ 23.9  
Risk sharing Arrangements — Flow Only
                                                                       
% insurance inforce subject to risk sharing (2)
    36.1 %     38.9 %     41.5 %     42.8 %     44.0 %     45.3 %     46.1 %     46.7 %        
% Quarterly NIW (flow only) subject to risk sharing (2)
    52.3 %     54.8 %     54.1 %     51.9 %     53.2 %     53.4 %     50.8 %     51.2 %        
Premium ceded (millions)
  $ 23.5     $ 27.7     $ 27.3     $ 30.0     $ 29.5     $ 28.8     $ 28.4     $ 29.0     $ 29.0  
Bulk % of risk inforce by credit grade
                                                                       
Prime (FICO 620 & >)
    54.5 %     54.3 %     55.1 %     53.7 %     54.1 %     54.4 %     55.0 %     55.6 %     56.3 %
A minus (FICO 575 - 619)(3)
    n/a       26.9 %     27.4 %     28.7 %     29.6 %     30.1 %     30.1 %     29.9 %     29.4 %
Subprime (FICO < 575)(3)
    n/a       18.8 %     17.5 %     17.6 %     16.3 %     15.5 %     14.9 %     14.5 %     14.3 %
Documentation Type — % of Risk in Force that is Alt A
                                                                       
Bulk
    n/a       n/a       n/a       n/a       n/a       n/a       24.8 %     24.7 %     24.6 %
Flow
    n/a       n/a       n/a       n/a       n/a       n/a       6.7 %     6.9 %     7.2 %
Total
    n/a       n/a       n/a       n/a       n/a       n/a       11.7 %     11.7 %     11.6 %
Other:
                                                                       
Shares repurchased
                                                                       
# of shares (000)
    2,260.5       3,111.2       551.4       1,868.1       331.4       0.0       94.5       395.0       319.5  
Average price
  $ 69.59     $ 51.29     $ 47.72     $ 39.76     $ 45.04     $     $ 52.29     $ 67.48     $ 71.88  
C-BASS Investment
  $ 144.7     $ 152.1     $ 168.7     $ 178.5     $ 197.3     $ 204.6     $ 219.8     $ 228.7     $ 243.0  
Sherman Investment (4)
  $ 42.8     $ 48.2     $ 54.4     $ 42.3     $ 49.3     $ 52.3     $ 63.7     $ 45.8     $ 46.3  
GAAP loss ratio
    22.3 %     33.8 %     45.2 %     42.8 %     51.3 %     63.7 %     65.7 %     55.8 %     46.5 %
GAAP expense ratio
    14.5 %     14.1 %     15.0 %     14.3 %     15.0 %     14.0 %     13.1 %     13.7 %     15.1 %

Footnotes:


(1)   Data not tracked prior to Q3 2002
 
(2)   Latest Quarter data not available due to lag in reporting
 
(3)   Data not tracked prior to Q2 2002
 
(4)   Ownership reduced from 45.5% to 41.5% in Q1 2003