MGIC Investment Corporation Reports Second Quarter 2016 Results
Notable items for the quarter include:
| Q2 2016 | Q2 2015 | Change | |||||||||
| New Insurance Written (billions) | $ | 12.6 | $ | 11.8 | 6.7 | % | |||||
| Insurance in force (billions) (1) | $ | 177.5 | $ | 168.8 | 5.5 | % | |||||
| Primary Delinquent Inventory (# loans) (1) | 52,558 | 66,357 | (20.8) | % | |||||||
| Annual Persistency (1) | 79.6 | % | 80.4 | % | |||||||
| Consolidated Risk-to-capital ratio | 13.2:1 | (2) | 14.8:1 | (1) | |||||||
| GAAP Loss Ratio | 20.1 | % | 42.3 | % | |||||||
| GAAP Underwriting Expense Ratio (3) | 13.9 | % | 15.0 | % | |||||||
| Provision for income taxes (millions) | $ | 56.0 | $ | 1.3 | |||||||
| 1) As of June 30, 2) preliminary as of June 30, 2016, 3) insurance operations |
Total revenues for the second quarter of 2016 were
New insurance written in the second quarter was
As of
At
Losses incurred in the second quarter of 2016 were
In the second quarter of 2016 a tax provision of
During the second quarter of 2016,
Conference Call and Webcast Details
About MGIC
MGIC (www.mgic.com), the principal subsidiary of
This press release, which includes certain additional statistical and other information, including non-GAAP financial information and a supplement that contains various portfolio statistics are both available on the Company's website at http://mtg.mgic.com/ under Investor Information, Press Releases or Presentations/Webcasts.
From time to time
Safe Harbor Statement
Forward Looking Statements and Risk Factors:
Our actual results could be affected by the risk factors below. These risk factors should be reviewed in connection with this press release and our periodic reports to the
In addition, the current period financial results included in this press release may be affected by additional information that arises prior to the filing of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
| MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES | ||||||||||||||||
| CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) | ||||||||||||||||
| Three Months Ended June 30, | Six Months Ended June 30, | |||||||||||||||
| (In thousands, except per share data) | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | ||||||||||||
| Net premiums written | $ | 250,015 | $ | 226,775 | $ | 481,296 | $ | 461,231 | ||||||||
| Revenues | ||||||||||||||||
| Net premiums earned | $ | 231,456 | $ | 213,508 | $ | 452,797 | $ | 430,796 | ||||||||
| Net investment income | 27,248 | 25,756 | 55,057 | 49,876 | ||||||||||||
| Net realized investment gains | 836 | 166 | 3,892 | 26,493 | ||||||||||||
| Other revenue | 3,994 | 3,699 | 10,367 | 6,179 | ||||||||||||
| Total revenues | 263,534 | 243,129 | 522,113 | 513,344 | ||||||||||||
| Losses and expenses | ||||||||||||||||
| Losses incurred, net | 46,590 | 90,238 | 131,602 | 172,023 | ||||||||||||
| Change in premium deficiency reserve | -- | (17,333) | -- | (23,751) | ||||||||||||
| Underwriting and other expenses, net | 37,593 | 37,875 | 79,331 | 78,900 | ||||||||||||
| Interest expense | 12,244 | 17,373 | 26,945 | 34,735 | ||||||||||||
| Loss on debt extinguishment | 1,868 | -- | 15,308 | -- | ||||||||||||
| Total losses and expenses | 98,295 | 128,153 | 253,186 | 261,907 | ||||||||||||
| Income before tax | 165,239 | 114,976 | 268,927 | 251,437 | ||||||||||||
| Provision for income taxes | 56,018 | 1,322 | 90,515 | 4,707 | ||||||||||||
| Net income | $ | 109,221 | $ | 113,654 | $ | 178,412 | $ | 246,730 | ||||||||
| Diluted earnings per share | $ | 0.26 | $ | 0.28 | $ | 0.43 | $ | 0.60 | ||||||||
| MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES | ||||||||||||||||
| EARNINGS PER SHARE (UNAUDITED) | ||||||||||||||||
| Three Months Ended June 30, | Six Months Ended June 30, | |||||||||||||||
| (In thousands, except per share data) | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | ||||||||||||
| Net income | $ | 109,221 | $ | 113,654 | $ | 178,412 | $ | 246,730 | ||||||||
| Interest expense, net of tax (1): | ||||||||||||||||
| 2% Convertible Senior Notes due 2020 | 1,982 | 3,049 | 3,964 | 6,098 | ||||||||||||
| 5% Convertible Senior Notes due 2017 | 1,728 | 4,692 | 4,406 | 9,385 | ||||||||||||
| 9% Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures due 2063 | 3,757 | -- | 8,379 | -- | ||||||||||||
| Diluted income available to common shareholders | $ | 116,688 | $ | 121,395 | $ | 195,161 | $ | 262,213 | ||||||||
| Weighted average shares - basic | 340,678 | 339,705 | 340,411 | 339,406 | ||||||||||||
| Effect of dilutive securities: | ||||||||||||||||
| Unvested restricted stock units | 1,209 | 1,831 | 1,444 | 2,203 | ||||||||||||
| 2% Convertible Senior Notes due 2020 | 71,917 | 71,917 | 71,917 | 71,917 | ||||||||||||
| 5% Convertible Senior Notes due 2017 | 13,307 | 25,674 | 15,449 | 25,674 | ||||||||||||
| 9% Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures due 2063 | 19,028 | -- | 21,133 | -- | ||||||||||||
| Weighted average common shares outstanding - diluted | 446,139 | 439,127 | 450,354 | 439,200 | ||||||||||||
| Diluted income per share | $ | 0.26 | $ | 0.28 | $ | 0.43 | $ | 0.60 | ||||||||
| (1) | Due to the valuation allowance, the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 were not tax effected. The three and six months ended June 30, 2016 have been tax effected at a rate of 35%. | |||||||||||||||
| MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES | ||||||||||||
| CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED) | ||||||||||||
| June 30, | December 31, | June 30, | ||||||||||
| (In thousands, except per share data) | 2016 | 2015 | 2015 | |||||||||
| ASSETS | ||||||||||||
| Investments (1) | $ | 4,566,078 | $ | 4,663,206 | $ | 4,552,110 | ||||||
| Cash and cash equivalents | 300,974 | 181,120 | 215,770 | |||||||||
| Prepaid reinsurance premiums | 118 | 166 | 58,085 | |||||||||
| Reinsurance recoverable on loss reserves (2) | 45,215 | 44,487 | 53,456 | |||||||||
| Home office and equipment, net | 30,800 | 30,095 | 28,925 | |||||||||
| Deferred insurance policy acquisition costs | 16,680 | 15,241 | 14,160 | |||||||||
| Deferred income taxes, net | 617,266 | 762,080 | -- | |||||||||
| Other assets | 167,655 | 171,948 | 316,137 | |||||||||
| Total assets | $ | 5,744,786 | $ | 5,868,343 | $ | 5,238,643 | ||||||
| LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY | ||||||||||||
| Liabilities: | ||||||||||||
| Loss reserves (2) | $ | 1,632,333 | $ | 1,893,402 | $ | 2,110,761 | ||||||
| Unearned premiums | 308,424 | 279,973 | 244,288 | |||||||||
| Senior notes | -- | -- | 61,929 | |||||||||
| Federal home loan bank advance | 155,000 | -- | -- | |||||||||
| Convertible senior notes | 636,324 | 822,301 | 831,873 | |||||||||
| Convertible junior debentures | 256,872 | 389,522 | 389,522 | |||||||||
| Other liabilities | 244,154 | 247,005 | 361,986 | |||||||||
| Total liabilities | 3,233,107 | 3,632,203 | 4,000,359 | |||||||||
| Shareholders' equity | 2,511,679 | 2,236,140 | 1,238,284 | |||||||||
| Total liabilities and shareholders' equity | $ | 5,744,786 | $ | 5,868,343 | $ | 5,238,643 | ||||||
| Book value per share (3) | $ | 7.37 | $ | 6.58 | $ | 3.65 | ||||||
| (1) Investments include net unrealized gains (losses) on securities | $ | 138,488 | $ | (26,567) | $ | (37,249) | ||||||
| (2) Loss reserves, net of reinsurance recoverable on loss reserves | $ | 1,587,118 | $ | 1,848,915 | $ | 2,057,305 | ||||||
| (3) Shares outstanding | 340,636 | 339,657 | 339,639 | |||||||||
| Additional Information | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q2 2016 | Q1 2016 | Q4 2015 | Q3 2015 | Q2 2015 | Q1 2015 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| New primary insurance written (NIW) (billions) | $ | 12.6 | $ | 8.3 | $ | 9.8 | $ | 12.4 | $ | 11.8 | $ | 9.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Monthly premium plans (1) | 9.9 | 6.5 | 7.7 | 10.2 | 9.5 | 6.9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Single premium plans | 2.7 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Direct average premium rate (bps) on NIW | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Monthly (1) | 60.5 | 64.5 | 64.6 | 63.0 | 63.1 | 63.6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Singles | 166.3 | 166.4 | 159.8 | 176.1 | 168.5 | 168.2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| New primary risk written (billions) | $ | 3.1 | $ | 2.1 | $ | 2.5 | $ | 3.2 | $ | 3.0 | $ | 2.2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Product mix as a % of primary flow NIW | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| >95% LTVs | 5 | % | 5 | % | 5 | % | 5 | % | 5 | % | 3 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Singles | 21 | % | 22 | % | 22 | % | 18 | % | 20 | % | 23 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Refinances | 17 | % | 18 | % | 17 | % | 12 | % | 20 | % | 29 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Primary Insurance In Force (IIF) (billions) | $ | 177.5 | $ | 175.0 | $ | 174.5 | $ | 172.7 | $ | 168.8 | $ | 166.1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Flow only | $ | 167.5 | $ | 164.8 | $ | 164.0 | $ | 161.8 | $ | 157.5 | $ | 154.5 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Annual Persistency | 79.6 | % | 79.9 | % | 79.7 | % | 80.0 | % | 80.4 | % | 81.6 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Primary Risk In Force (RIF) (billions) | $ | 46.2 | $ | 45.6 | $ | 45.5 | $ | 45.0 | $ | 44.0 | $ | 43.2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Flow only | $ | 43.4 | $ | 42.7 | $ | 42.5 | $ | 41.9 | $ | 40.8 | $ | 40.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total Primary RIF by FICO (%) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FICO 740 & > | 48 | % | 47 | % | 47 | % | 47 | % | 46 | % | 46 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| FICO 700-739 | 24 | % | 24 | % | 24 | % | 24 | % | 24 | % | 23 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| FICO 660-699 | 16 | % | 16 | % | 16 | % | 16 | % | 16 | % | 16 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| FICO 659 & < | 12 | % | 13 | % | 13 | % | 13 | % | 14 | % | 15 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Average Coverage Ratio (RIF/IIF) | 26.1 | % | 26.1 | % | 26.1 | % | 26.1 | % | 26.0 | % | 26.0 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Average Loan Size of IIF (thousands) | $ | 178.89 | $ | 177.08 | $ | 175.89 | $ | 174.58 | $ | 172.37 | $ | 171.05 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Flow only | $ | 181.23 | $ | 179.32 | $ | 178.03 | $ | 176.61 | $ | 174.23 | $ | 172.88 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Primary IIF - # of loans | 992,076 | 988,512 | 992,188 | 989,020 | 979,202 | 970,931 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Flow only | 924,474 | 919,229 | 921,166 | 916,230 | 904,055 | 893,461 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary IIF - Default Roll Forward - # of Loans | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Beginning Default Inventory | 55,590 | 64,642 | 64,642 | 66,357 | 72,236 | 79,901 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| New Notices | 16,080 | 16,731 | 18,459 | 19,509 | 17,451 | 18,896 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cures | (15,640) | (19,053) | (16,910) | (17,036) | (17,897) | (21,767) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Paids (including those charged to a deductible or captive) | (3,195) | (3,373) | (3,333) | (3,958) | (4,140) | (4,573) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rescissions and denials | (142) | (210) | (225) | (230) | (172) | (221) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Items removed from inventory | (135) | (4) | (1,138) | -- | -- | (1,121) | -- | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ending Default Inventory | 52,558 | 55,590 | 62,633 | 64,642 | 66,357 | 72,236 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary claim received inventory included in ending default inventory | 1,829 | 2,267 | 2,769 | 2,982 | 3,440 | 4,448 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Composition of Cures | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reported delinquent and cured intraquarter | 4,306 | 6,248 | 5,110 | 5,185 | 4,620 | 6,887 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Number of payments delinquent prior to cure | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 payments or less | 7,002 | 8,413 | 7,714 | 7,146 | 7,721 | 9,516 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4-11 payments | 3,099 | 3,077 | 2,836 | 3,005 | 3,789 | 3,688 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 payments or more | 1,233 | 1,315 | 1,250 | 1,700 | 1,767 | 1,676 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Cures in Quarter | 15,640 | 19,053 | 16,910 | 17,036 | 17,897 | 21,767 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Composition of Paids | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Number of payments delinquent at time of claim payment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 payments or less | 18 | 25 | 18 | 20 | 16 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4-11 payments | 320 | 389 | 304 | 374 | 435 | 550 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 payments | 2,857 | 2,959 | 3,011 | 3,564 | 3,689 | 4,011 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Paids in Quarter | 3,195 | 3,373 | 3,333 | 3,958 | 4,140 | 4,573 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aging of Primary Default Inventory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Consecutive months in default | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 months or less | 11,547 | 22 | % | 10,120 | 18 | % | 13,053 | 21 | % | 13,991 | 22 | % | 12,545 | 19 | % | 11,604 | 16 | % | ||||||||||||
| 4-11 months | 12,680 | 24 | % | 15,319 | 28 | % | 15,763 | 25 | % | 14,703 | 23 | % | 15,487 | 23 | % | 18,940 | 26 | % | ||||||||||||
| 12 months or more | 28,331 | 54 | % | 30,151 | 54 | % | 33,817 | 54 | % | 35,948 | 55 | % | 38,325 | 58 | % | 41,692 | 58 | % | ||||||||||||
| Number of payments delinquent | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 payments or less | 17,299 | 33 | % | 16,864 | 30 | % | 20,360 | 33 | % | 20,637 | 32 | % | 19,274 | 29 | % | 19,159 | 27 | % | ||||||||||||
| 4-11 payments | 12,746 | 24 | % | 14,595 | 26 | % | 15,092 | 24 | % | 14,890 | 23 | % | 15,710 | 24 | % | 18,372 | 25 | % | ||||||||||||
| 12 payments or more | 22,513 | 43 | % | 24,131 | 44 | % | 27,181 | 43 | % | 29,115 | 45 | % | 31,373 | 47 | % | 34,705 | 48 | % | ||||||||||||
| Primary IIF - # of Delinquent Loans | 52,558 | 55,590 | 62,633 | 64,642 | 66,357 | 72,236 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Flow only | 39,177 | 41,440 | 47,088 | 48,436 | 49,507 | 53,390 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary IIF Default Rates | 5.30 | % | 5.62 | % | 6.31 | % | 6.54 | % | 6.78 | % | 7.44 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Flow only | 4.24 | % | 4.51 | % | 5.11 | % | 5.29 | % | 5.48 | % | 5.98 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Reserves | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Direct Loss Reserves (millions) | $ | 1,574 | $ | 1,683 | $ | 1,807 | $ | 1,877 | $ | 1,993 | $ | 2,112 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Average Direct Reserve Per Default | $ | 29,939 | $ | 30,268 | $ | 28,859 | $ | 29,032 | $ | 30,033 | $ | 29,233 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Pool | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Direct loss reserves (millions) | $ | 37 | $ | 38 | $ | 43 | $ | 49 | $ | 52 | $ | 57 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Ending default inventory | 2,024 | 2,247 | 2,739 | 2,950 | 3,129 | 3,350 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pool claim received inventory included in ending default inventory | 95 | 72 | 60 | 75 | 97 | 88 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reserves related to Freddie Mac settlement (millions) | $ | 21 | $ | 31 | $ | 42 | $ | 52 | $ | 63 | $ | 73 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Other Gross Reserves (millions) (3) | $ | -- | $ | 1 | $ | 1 | $ | 2 | $ | 3 | $ | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Net Paid Claims (millions) (6) | $ | 172 | $ | 222 | $ | 188 | $ | 207 | $ | 222 | $ | 232 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total primary (excluding settlements) | $ | 153 | $ | 166 | $ | 164 | $ | 190 | $ | 196 | $ | 217 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Settlements | $ | 4 | (4) | $ | 47 | $ | -- | $ | -- | $ | 10 | -- | ||||||||||||||||||
| Pool - with aggregate loss limits | $ | 2 | $ | 1 | $ | 4 | $ | 3 | $ | 5 | $ | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Pool - without aggregate loss limits | $ | 2 | $ | 2 | $ | 2 | $ | 3 | $ | 3 | $ | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Pool - Freddie Mac settlement | $ | 10 | $ | 11 | $ | 10 | $ | 11 | $ | 10 | $ | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Reinsurance | $ | (4) | $ | (10) | $ | (2) | $ | (5) | $ | (8) | $ | (8) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Other (3) | $ | 5 | $ | 5 | $ | 10 | $ | 5 | $ | 6 | $ | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Reinsurance terminations (6) | $ | -- | $ | -- | $ | -- | $ | (15) | $ | -- | $ | -- | ||||||||||||||||||
| Primary Average Claim Payment (thousands) | $ | 48.0 | (5) | $ | 49.3 | (5) | $ | 49.1 | $ | 48.2 | $ | 48.6 | $ | 47.4 | ||||||||||||||||
| Flow only | $ | 45.9 | (5) | $ | 45.4 | (5) | $ | 45.6 | $ | 44.8 | $ | 45.1 | $ | 44.2 | ||||||||||||||||
| Reinsurance excluding captives | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| % insurance inforce subject to reinsurance | 74.7 | % | 73.7 | % | 72.9 | % | 71.9 | % | 59.5 | % | 57.1 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| % Quarterly NIW subject to reinsurance | 90.2 | % | 89.1 | % | 89.5 | % | 90.6 | % | 97.9 | % | 85.2 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Ceded premium written (millions) | $ | 30.0 | $ | 31.7 | $ | 30.0 | $ | (46.8) | (8) | $ | 30.9 | $ | 27.1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Ceded premium earned (millions) | $ | 30.0 | $ | 31.7 | $ | 30.0 | $ | 11.0 | (8) | $ | 23.0 | $ | 24.6 | |||||||||||||||||
| Ceded losses incurred (millions) | $ | 6.1 | $ | 8.5 | $ | 7.2 | $ | 4.2 | $ | 1.2 | $ | 4.9 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Ceding commissions (millions) (included in underwriting and other expenses) | $ | 11.9 | $ | 11.6 | $ | 11.4 | $ | (2.4) | (8) | $ | 11.7 | $ | 10.1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Profit commission (millions) (included in ceded premiums) | $ | 29.8 | $ | 26.2 | $ | 27.0 | $ | 34.9 | (8) | $ | 27.5 | $ | 23.5 | |||||||||||||||||
| Direct Pool RIF (millions) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| With aggregate loss limits | $ | 249 | $ | 251 | $ | 271 | $ | 279 | $ | 282 | $ | 287 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Without aggregate loss limits | $ | 343 | $ | 365 | $ | 388 | $ | 418 | $ | 456 | $ | 479 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Bulk Primary Insurance Statistics | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Insurance in force (billions) | $ | 10.0 | $ | 10.2 | $ | 10.5 | $ | 10.9 | $ | 11.3 | $ | 11.6 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Risk in force (billions) | $ | 2.8 | $ | 2.9 | $ | 3.0 | $ | 3.1 | $ | 3.2 | $ | 3.2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Average loan size (thousands) | $ | 146.84 | $ | 147.42 | $ | 148.15 | $ | 149.00 | $ | 149.93 | $ | 149.90 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Number of delinquent loans | 13,381 | 14,150 | 15,545 | 16,206 | 16,850 | 18,846 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Default rate | 19.79 | % | 20.42 | % | 21.89 | % | 22.26 | % | 22.42 | % | 24.33 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Primary paid claims (millions) | $ | 35 | $ | 43 | (5) | $ | 39 | $ | 47 | $ | 46 | $ | 50 | |||||||||||||||||
| Average claim payment (thousands) | $ | 56.8 | $ | 65.1 | (5) | $ | 65.7 | $ | 62.2 | $ | 63.3 | $ | 61.8 | |||||||||||||||||
| Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation - Risk to Capital | 11.6:1 | (7) | 12.3:1 | 12.1:1 | 12.3:1 | 13.2:1 | 13.7:1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Combined Insurance Companies - Risk to Capital | 13.2:1 | (7) | 13.8:1 | 13.6:1 | 13.6:1 | 14.8:1 | 15.4:1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| GAAP loss ratio (insurance operations only) | 20.1 | % | 38.4 | % | 42.0 | % | 32.0 | % | (2) | 42.3 | % | (2) | 37.6 | % | (2) | |||||||||||||||
| GAAP underwriting expense ratio (insurance operations only) | 13.9 | % | 16.9 | % | 13.9 | % | 14.4 | % | 15.0 | % | 16.4 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
| Note: The FICO credit score for a loan with multiple borrowers is the lowest of the borrowers' "decision FICO scores." A borrower's "decision FICO score" is determined as follows: if there are three FICO scores available, the middle FICO score is used; if two FICO scores are available, the lower of the two is used; if only one FICO score is available, it is used. |
| Note: Average claim paid may vary from period to period due to amounts associated with mitigation efforts. |
| (1) Includes loans with annual and split payments. |
| (2) As calculated, does not reflect any effects due to premium deficiency. |
| (3) Includes Australian operations through Q4 2015. |
| (4) Q2 2016 includes the impact of an agreement to settle coverage on certain non-performing loans. The agreement became effective in the second quarter of 2016 and did not have a material financial impact in the quarter. |
| (5) Excludes claim settlements |
| (6) Net paid claims, as presented, does not include amounts received in conjunction with terminations or commutations of reinsurance agreements. |
| (7) Preliminary |
| (8) In the third quarter of 2015, the April 2013 quota share reinsurance agreement was restructured via a commutation and new agreement. The effects of the new agreement for the third quarter of 2015 were as follows (in millions): |
| Ceded premium written | $ | 22.6 | |
| Ceded premium earned | $ | 22.6 | |
| Ceding commissions | $ | 9.2 | |
| Profit commissions | $ | 23.3 |
Risk Factors
As used below, "we," "our" and "us" refer to
Competition or changes in our relationships with our customers could reduce our revenues, reduce our premium yields and / or increase our losses.
Our private mortgage insurance competitors include:
Arch Mortgage Insurance Company ,Essent Guaranty, Inc. ,Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corporation ,National Mortgage Insurance Corporation ,Radian Guaranty Inc. , andUnited Guaranty Residential Insurance Company .
The level of competition within the private mortgage insurance industry has intensified over the past several years and is not expected to diminish. We believe that we currently compete with other private mortgage insurers based on pricing, underwriting requirements, financial strength, customer relationships, name recognition, reputation, the strength of our management team and field organization, the ancillary products and services provided to lenders (including contract underwriting services), the depth of our databases covering insured loans and the effective use of technology and innovation in the delivery and servicing of our mortgage insurance products.
Recent competitive pricing practices in the market have included: (i) reductions in standard filed rates on borrower-paid policies, (ii) use by certain competitors of a spectrum of filed rates to allow for formulaic, risk-based pricing (commonly referred to as "black-box" pricing); and (iii) use of customized rates (discounted from published rates) on lender-paid, single premium policies. The willingness of mortgage insurers to offer reduced pricing (through filed or customized rates) has been met with an increased demand from various lenders for reduced rate products. This has further intensified pricing competition.
We announced changes to our premium rates in
In each of 2015 and the first half of 2016, approximately 5% of our new insurance written was for loans for which one lender was the original insured. Our relationships with our customers could be adversely affected by a variety of factors, including premium rates higher than can be obtained from competitors, tightening of and adherence to our underwriting requirements, which may result in our declining to insure some of the loans originated by our customers, and insurance rescissions and curtailments that affect the customer. We have ongoing discussions with lenders who are significant customers regarding their objections to our claims paying practices.
Substantially all of our insurance written since 2008 has been for loans purchased by
Financial strength ratings may also play a greater role if the GSEs no longer operate in their current capacities, for example, due to legislative or regulatory action. In addition, although the PMIERs do not require minimum financial strength ratings, the GSEs consider financial strength ratings to be important when utilizing forms of credit enhancement other than traditional mortgage insurance. If we are unable to compete effectively in the current or any future markets as a result of the financial strength ratings assigned to our mortgage insurance subsidiaries, our future new insurance written could be negatively affected.
The amount of insurance we write could be adversely affected if lenders and investors select alternatives to private mortgage insurance.
Alternatives to private mortgage insurance include:
- lenders using FHA, VA and other government mortgage insurance programs,
- lenders and other investors holding mortgages in portfolio and self-insuring,
- investors using risk mitigation and credit risk transfer techniques other than private mortgage insurance, and
- lenders originating mortgages using piggyback structures 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 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 that has private mortgage insurance.
Investors (including the GSEs) have used risk mitigation and credit risk transfer techniques other than private mortgage insurance, such as obtaining insurance from non-mortgage insurers, engaging in credit-linked note transactions executed in the capital markets, or using other forms of debt issuances or securitizations that transfer credit risk directly to other investors; using other risk mitigation techniques in conjunction with reduced levels of private mortgage insurance coverage; or accepting credit risk without credit enhancement. Although the risk mitigation and credit risk transfer techniques used by the GSEs in the past several years have not displaced primary mortgage insurance, we cannot predict the impact of future transactions.
The FHA's share of the low down payment residential mortgages that were subject to FHA, VA or primary private mortgage insurance increased to an estimated 41.0% in the first quarter of 2016, up from 40.2% in 2015 and 33.9% in 2014. In the past ten years, the FHA's share has been as low as 15.5% in 2006 and as high as 70.8% in 2009. Factors that influence the FHA's market share include relative rates and fees, underwriting guidelines and loan limits of the FHA, VA, private mortgage insurers and the GSEs; flexibility for the FHA to establish new products as a result of federal legislation and programs; returns obtained by lenders for
The VA's share of the low down payment residential mortgages that were subject to FHA, VA or primary private mortgage insurance increased to an estimated 26.3% in the first quarter of 2016, up from 24.7% in 2015 and 25.4% in 2014 (which had been its highest annual market share in ten years). The VA's lowest market share in the past ten years was 5.4% in 2007. We believe that the VA's market share has generally been increasing because the VA offers 100% LTV loans and charges a one-time funding fee that can be included in the loan amount but no additional monthly expense, and because of an increase in the number of borrowers that are eligible for the VA's program.
Changes in the business practices of the GSEs, federal legislation that changes their charters or a restructuring of the GSEs could reduce our revenues or increase our losses.
The GSEs' charters generally require credit enhancement for a low down payment mortgage loan (a loan amount that exceeds 80% of a home's value) in order for such loan to be eligible for purchase by the GSEs. Lenders generally have used private mortgage insurance to satisfy this credit enhancement requirement and low down payment mortgages purchased by the GSEs generally are insured with private mortgage insurance. As a result, the business practices of the GSEs greatly impact our business and include:
- private mortgage insurer eligibility requirements of the GSEs (for information about the financial requirements included in the PMIERs, see our risk factor titled "We may not continue to meet the GSEs' private mortgage insurer eligibility requirements and our returns may decrease as we are required to maintain more capital in order to maintain our eligibility"),
- the level of private mortgage insurance coverage, subject to the limitations of the GSEs' charters (which may be changed by federal legislation), when private mortgage insurance is used as the required credit enhancement on low down payment mortgages,
- the amount of loan level price adjustments and guaranty fees (which result in higher costs to borrowers) that the GSEs assess on loans that require private mortgage insurance,
- whether the GSEs influence the mortgage lender's selection of the mortgage insurer providing coverage and, if so, any transactions that are related to that selection,
- the underwriting standards that determine which loans are eligible for purchase by the GSEs, which can 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,
- the programs established by the GSEs intended to avoid or mitigate loss on insured mortgages and the circumstances in which mortgage servicers must implement such programs,
- the terms that the GSEs require to be included in mortgage insurance policies for loans that they purchase,
- the extent to which the GSEs intervene in mortgage insurers' rescission practices or rescission settlement practices with lenders, and
- the maximum loan limits of the GSEs in comparison to those of the FHA and other investors.
We may not continue to meet the GSEs' private mortgage insurer eligibility requirements and our returns may decrease as we are required to maintain more capital in order to maintain our eligibility.
We must comply with the PMIERs to be eligible to insure loans purchased by the GSEs. The PMIERs include financial requirements, as well as business, quality control and certain transaction approval requirements. The financial requirements of the PMIERs require a mortgage insurer's "Available Assets" (generally only the most liquid assets of an insurer) to equal or exceed its "Minimum Required Assets" (which are based on an insurer's book and are calculated from tables of factors with several risk dimensions and are subject to a floor amount). Based on our interpretation of the PMIERs, as of
If MGIC ceases to be eligible to insure loans purchased by one or both of the GSEs, it would significantly reduce the volume of our new business writings. Factors that may negatively impact MGIC's ability to continue to comply with the financial requirements of the PMIERs include the following:
- The GSEs may reduce the amount of credit they allow under the PMIERs for the risk ceded under our quota share reinsurance transaction. The GSEs' ongoing approval of that transaction is subject to several conditions and the transaction will be reviewed under the PMIERs at least annually by the GSEs. For more information about the transaction, see our risk factor titled "The mix of business we write affects our Minimum Required Assets under the PMIERs, our premium yields and the likelihood of losses occurring."
- The GSEs could make the PMIERs more onerous in the future; in this regard, the PMIERs provide that the tables of factors that determine Minimum Required Assets will be updated every two years and may be updated more frequently to reflect changes in macroeconomic conditions or loan performance. The GSEs will provide notice 180 days prior to the effective date of table updates. In addition, the GSEs may amend the PMIERs at any time.
- Our future operating results may be negatively impacted by the matters discussed in the rest of these risk factors. Such matters could decrease our revenues, increase our losses or require the use of assets, thereby creating a shortfall in Available Assets.
- Should additional capital be needed by MGIC in the future, additional capital contributions from our holding company may not be available due to competing demands on holding company resources, including for repayment of debt.
While on an overall basis, the amount of Available Assets MGIC must hold in order to continue to insure GSE loans increased under the PMIERs over what state regulation currently requires, our reinsurance transaction mitigates the negative effect of the PMIERs on our returns. In this regard, see the first bullet point above.
The benefit of our net operating loss carryforwards may become substantially limited.
As of
While we have adopted our Amended and Restated Rights Agreement to minimize the likelihood of transactions in our stock resulting in an ownership change, future issuances of equity-linked securities or transactions in our stock and equity-linked securities that may not be within our control may cause us to experience an ownership change. If we experience an ownership change, we may not be able to fully utilize our net operating losses, resulting in additional income taxes and a reduction in our shareholders' equity.
We are involved in legal proceedings and are subject to the risk of additional legal proceedings in the future.
Before paying a claim, we review the loan and servicing files to determine the appropriateness of the claim amount. All of our insurance policies provide that we can reduce or deny a claim if the servicer did not comply with its obligations under our insurance policy. We call such reduction of claims "curtailments." In 2015 and the first half of 2016, curtailments reduced our average claim paid by approximately 6.7% and 5.5%, respectively.
When reviewing the loan file associated with a claim, we may determine that we have the right to rescind coverage on the loan. (In our
When the insured disputes our right to curtail claims or rescind coverage, we generally engage in discussions in an attempt to settle the dispute. If we are unable to reach a settlement, the outcome of a dispute ultimately would be determined by legal proceedings.
Until a liability associated with settlement discussions or legal proceedings becomes probable and can be reasonably estimated, we consider our claim payment or rescission resolved for financial reporting purposes . Under ASC 450-20, an estimated loss from such discussions and proceedings is accrued for only if we determine that the loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. In such cases, we have recorded our best estimate of our probable loss . If we are not able to implement settlements we consider probable, we intend to defend MGIC vigorously against any related legal proceedings.
In addition to matters for which we have recorded a probable loss, we are involved in other discussions and/or proceedings with insureds with respect to our claims paying practices. Although it is reasonably possible that when these matters are resolved we will not prevail in all cases, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the potential liability. We estimate the maximum exposure associated with matters where a loss is reasonably possible to be approximately
Mortgage insurers, including MGIC, have been involved in litigation and regulatory actions related to alleged violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly known as FCRA. For MGIC, while these proceedings in the aggregate have not resulted in material liability, were there to be future proceedings under these laws, there can be no assurance that the outcome would not have a material adverse affect on us. In addition, various regulators, including the CFPB, state insurance commissioners and state attorneys general may bring other actions seeking various forms of relief in connection with alleged violations of RESPA. The insurance law provisions of many states prohibit paying for the referral of insurance business and provide various mechanisms to enforce this prohibition. While we believe our practices are in conformity with applicable laws and regulations, it is not possible to predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of any such reviews or investigations nor is it possible to predict their effect on us or the mortgage insurance industry.
In addition to the matters described above, we are involved in other legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. In our opinion, based on the facts known at this time, the ultimate resolution of these ordinary course legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.
We are subject to comprehensive regulation and other requirements, which we may fail to satisfy.
We are subject to comprehensive, detailed regulation by state insurance departments. These regulations are principally designed for the protection of our insured policyholders, rather than for the benefit of investors. Although their scope varies, state insurance laws generally grant broad supervisory powers to agencies or officials to examine insurance companies and enforce rules or exercise discretion affecting almost every significant aspect of the insurance business. State insurance regulatory authorities could take actions, including changes in capital requirements, that could have a material adverse effect on us. For more information about state capital requirements, see our risk factor titled "State capital requirements may prevent us from continuing to write new insurance on an uninterrupted basis." For more details about the various ways in which our subsidiaries are regulated, see "Regulation" in Item 1 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the
In
Resolution of our dispute with the
As previously disclosed, the
In 2014, we received Notices of Deficiency (commonly referred to as "90 day letters") covering the 2000-2007 tax years. The Notices of Deficiency reflect taxes and penalties related to the REMIC matters of
We filed a petition with the U.S. Tax Court contesting most of the
Because we establish loss reserves only upon a loan default rather than based on estimates of our ultimate losses on risk in force, losses may have a disproportionate adverse effect on our earnings in certain periods.
In accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in
Because loss reserve estimates are subject to uncertainties, paid claims may be substantially different than our loss reserves.
When we establish reserves, we estimate the ultimate loss on delinquent loans using estimated claim rates and claim amounts. The estimated claim rates and claim amounts represent our best estimates of what we will actually pay on the loans in default as of the reserve date and incorporate anticipated mitigation from rescissions and curtailments. The establishment of loss reserves is subject to inherent uncertainty and requires judgment by management. The actual amount of the claim payments may be substantially different than our loss reserve estimates. Our estimates could be adversely affected by several factors, including a deterioration of regional or national economic conditions, and an increase in the length of time a loan has been delinquent before a claim is received. The deterioration in conditions may include an increase in unemployment, reducing borrowers' income and thus their ability to make mortgage payments, and a decrease in housing values, which may affect borrower willingness to continue to make mortgage payments when the value of the home is below the mortgage balance. Changes to our estimates could have a material impact on our future results, even in a stable economic environment. In addition, historically, losses incurred have followed a seasonal trend in which the second half of the year has weaker credit performance than the first half, with higher new default notice activity and a lower cure rate.
We rely on our management team and our business could be harmed if we are unable to retain qualified personnel or successfully develop and/or recruit their replacements.
Our success depends, in part, on the skills, working relationships and continued services of our management team and other key personnel. The unexpected departure of key personnel could adversely affect the conduct of our business. In such event, we would be required to obtain other personnel to manage and operate our business. In addition, we will be required to replace the knowledge and expertise of our aging workforce as our workers retire. In either case, there can be no assurance that we would be able to develop or recruit suitable replacements for the departing individuals; that replacements could be hired, if necessary, on terms that are favorable to us; or that we can successfully transition such replacements in a timely manner. We currently have not entered into any employment agreements with our officers or key personnel. Volatility or lack of performance in our stock price may affect our ability to retain our key personnel or attract replacements should key personnel depart. Without a properly skilled and experienced workforce, our costs, including productivity costs and costs to replace employees may increase, and this could negatively impact our earnings.
Loan modification and other similar programs may not continue to provide substantial benefits to us.
The federal government, including through the
In 2015 and the first half of 2016, approximately 16% and 14%, respectively, of our primary cures were the result of modifications, with HAMP accounting for approximately 66% and 64% of the modifications in each of those periods, respectively. Although the HAMP and HARP programs have been extended through
We cannot determine the total benefit we may derive from loan modification programs, particularly given the uncertainty around the re-default rates for defaulted loans that have been modified. Our loss reserves do not account for potential re-defaults of current loans.
If the volume of low down payment home mortgage originations declines, the amount of insurance that we write could decline, which would reduce our revenues.
The factors that affect the volume of low down payment mortgage originations include:
- restrictions on mortgage credit due to more stringent underwriting standards, liquidity issues or risk-retention and/or capital requirements affecting lenders ,
- the level of home mortgage interest rates and the deductibility of mortgage interest for income tax purposes,
- the health of the domestic economy as well as conditions in regional and local economies and the level of consumer confidence,
- 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 refinanced loans have loan-to-value ratios that require private mortgage insurance, and
- government housing policy encouraging loans to first-time homebuyers.
A decline in the volume of low down payment home mortgage originations could decrease demand for mortgage insurance, decrease our new insurance written and reduce our revenues. For other factors that could decrease the demand for mortgage insurance, see our risk factor titled "The amount of insurance we write could be adversely affected if lenders and investors select alternatives to private mortgage insurance."
State capital requirements may prevent us from continuing to write new insurance on an uninterrupted basis.
The insurance laws of 16 jurisdictions, including
At
At
The NAIC previously announced that it plans to revise the minimum capital and surplus requirements for mortgage insurers that are provided for in its Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Model Act. In
While MGIC currently meets the State Capital Requirements of
Downturns in the domestic economy or declines in the value of borrowers' homes from their value at the time their loans closed may result in more homeowners defaulting and our losses increasing, with a corresponding decrease in our returns.
Losses result from events that reduce a borrower's ability or willingness to continue to make mortgage payments, such as unemployment, health issues, family status, 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. In general, favorable economic conditions 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, including an increase in unemployment, generally increases the likelihood that borrowers will not have sufficient income to pay their mortgages and can also adversely affect housing values, which in turn can influence the willingness of borrowers with sufficient resources to make mortgage payments to do so when the mortgage balance exceeds the value of the home. Housing values may decline even absent a deterioration in economic conditions due to declines in demand for homes, which in turn may result from changes in buyers' perceptions of the potential for future appreciation, restrictions on and the cost of mortgage credit due to more stringent underwriting standards, higher interest rates generally, changes to the deductibility of mortgage interest for income tax purposes, or other factors. Changes in housing values and unemployment levels are inherently difficult to forecast given the uncertainty in the current market environment, including uncertainty about the effect of actions the federal government has taken and may take with respect to tax policies, mortgage finance programs and policies, and housing finance reform.
The mix of business we write affects our Minimum Required Assets under the PMIERs, our premium yields and the likelihood of losses occurring.
The Minimum Required Assets under the PMIERs are, in part, a function of the direct risk-in-force and the risk profile of the loans we insure, considering loan-to-value ratio, credit score, vintage, HARP status and delinquency status; and whether the loans were insured under lender-paid mortgage insurance policies or other policies that are not subject to automatic termination consistent with the Homeowners Protection Act requirements for borrower paid mortgage insurance. Therefore, if our direct risk-in-force increases through increases in new insurance written, or if our mix of business changes to include loans with higher loan-to-value ratios or lower FICO scores, for example, or if we insure more loans under lender-paid mortgage insurance policies, we will be required to hold more Available Assets in order to maintain GSE eligibility.
The minimum capital required by the risk-based capital framework contained in the exposure draft released by the NAIC in
Beginning in 2014, we have increased the percentage of our business from lender-paid single premium policies. Depending on the actual life of a single premium policy and its premium rate relative to that of a monthly premium policy, a single premium policy may generate more or less premium than a monthly premium policy over its life. Currently, we expect to receive less lifetime premium from a new lender-paid single premium policy than we would from a new borrower-paid monthly premium policy.
We entered into a quota share reinsurance transaction with a group of unaffiliated reinsurers that was restructured effective
In addition to the effect of reinsurance on our premium yield, we expect a modest decline in premium yield resulting from the premium rates themselves: the books we wrote before 2009, which have a higher average premium rate than subsequent books, are expected to continue to decline as a percentage of the insurance in force; and the average premium rate on these books is also expected to decline as the premium rates reset to lower levels at the time the loans reach the ten-year anniversary of their initial coverage date. However, for loans that have utilized HARP, the initial ten-year period was reset to begin as of the date of the HARP transaction. As of
The circumstances in which we are entitled to rescind coverage have narrowed for insurance we have written in recent years. During the second quarter of 2012, we began writing a portion of our new insurance under an endorsement to our then existing master policy (the "Gold Cert Endorsement"), which limited our ability to rescind coverage compared to that master policy. The Gold Cert Endorsement is filed as Exhibit 99.7 to our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
To comply with requirements of the GSEs, in 2014 we introduced a new master policy. Our rescission rights under our new master policy are comparable to those under our previous master policy, as modified by the Gold Cert Endorsement, but may be further narrowed if the GSEs permit modifications to them. Our new master policy is filed as Exhibit 99.19 to our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
From time to time, in response to market conditions, we change the types of loans that we insure and the requirements under which we insure them. We also change our underwriting guidelines, in part through aligning some of them with
Even when housing values are stable or rising, mortgages with certain characteristics have higher probabilities of claims. These characteristics include loans with higher loan-to-value ratios, lower FICO scores, limited underwriting, including limited borrower documentation, or higher total debt-to-income ratios, as well as loans having combinations of higher risk factors. As of
As of
Although we attempt to incorporate these higher expected claim rates into our underwriting and pricing models, there can be no assurance that the premiums earned and the associated investment income will be adequate to compensate for actual losses even under our current underwriting requirements. We do, however, believe that our insurance written beginning in the second half of 2008 will generate underwriting profits.
The premiums we charge may not be adequate to compensate us for our liabilities for losses and as a result any inadequacy could materially affect our financial condition and results of operations.
We set premiums at the time a policy is issued based on our expectations regarding likely performance of the insured risks over the long-term. Our premiums are subject to approval by state regulatory agencies, which can delay or limit our ability to increase our premiums. Generally, we cannot cancel mortgage insurance coverage or adjust renewal premiums during the life of a mortgage insurance policy. As a result, higher than anticipated claims generally cannot be offset by premium increases on policies in force or mitigated by our non-renewal or cancellation of insurance coverage. The premiums we charge, and the associated investment income, may not be adequate to compensate us for the risks and costs associated with the insurance coverage provided to customers. An increase in the number or size of claims, compared to what we anticipate, could adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition. Our premium rates are also based in part on the amount of capital we are required to hold against the insured risk. If the amount of capital we are required to hold increases from the amount we were required to hold when a policy was written, we cannot adjust premiums to compensate for this and our returns may be lower than we assumed.
The losses we have incurred on our 2005-2008 books have exceeded our premiums from those books. Our current expectation is that the incurred losses from those books, although declining, will continue to generate a material portion of our total incurred losses for a number of years. The ultimate amount of these losses will depend in part on general economic conditions, including unemployment, and the direction of home prices.
We are susceptible to disruptions in the servicing of mortgage loans that we insure.
We depend on reliable, consistent third-party servicing of the loans that we insure. Over the last several years, the mortgage loan servicing industry has experienced consolidation and an increase in the number of specialty servicers servicing delinquent loans. The resulting change in the composition of servicers could lead to disruptions in the servicing of mortgage loans covered by our insurance policies. Further changes in the servicing industry resulting in the transfer of servicing could cause a disruption in the servicing of delinquent loans which could reduce servicers' ability to undertake mitigation efforts that could help limit our losses. Future housing market conditions could lead to additional increases in delinquencies and transfers of servicing.
Changes in interest rates, house prices or mortgage insurance cancellation requirements may change the length of time that our policies remain in force.
The premium from a single premium policy is collected upfront and generally earned over the estimated life of the policy. In contrast, premiums from a monthly premium policy are received and earned each month over the life of the policy. In each year, most of our premiums received 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 a significant determinant of our revenues. Future premiums on our monthly premium policies in force represent a material portion of our claims paying resources and a low persistency rate will reduce those future premiums. In contrast, a higher than expected persistency rate will decrease the profitability from single premium policies because they will remain in force longer than was estimated when the policies were written.
The monthly premium policies for the substantial majority of loans we insured provides that, for the first ten years of the policy, the premium is determined by the product of the premium rate and the initial loan balance; thereafter, a lower premium rate is applied to the initial loan balance. The initial ten-year period is reset when the loan is refinanced under HARP. The premiums on many of the policies in our 2005 book that were not refinanced under HARP reset in 2015 and the premiums on many of the policies in our 2006 book that were not refinanced under HARP will reset in 2016. As of
Our persistency rate was 79.6% at
Our persistency rate is primarily affected by the level of current mortgage interest rates compared to the mortgage coupon rates on our insurance in force, which affects the vulnerability of the insurance in force to refinancing. Our persistency rate is also affected by mortgage insurance cancellation policies of mortgage investors along with the current value of the homes underlying the mortgages in the insurance in force.
Your ownership in our company may be diluted by additional capital that we raise or if the holders of our outstanding convertible debt convert that debt into shares of our common stock.
As noted above under our risk factor titled "We may not continue to meet the GSEs' private mortgage insurer eligibility requirements and our returns may decrease as we are required to maintain more capital in order to maintain our eligibility," although we are currently in compliance with the requirements of the PMIERs, there can be no assurance that we would not seek to issue non-dilutive debt capital or to raise additional equity capital to manage our capital position under the PMIERs or for other purposes. Any future issuance of equity securities may dilute your ownership interest in our company. In addition, the market price of our common stock could decline as a result of sales of a large number of shares or similar securities in the market or the perception that such sales could occur.
At
At
Our holding company debt obligations materially exceed our holding company cash and investments.
At
The Convertible Senior Notes and Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures are obligations of our holding company,
We could be adversely affected if personal information on consumers that we maintain is improperly disclosed and our information technology systems may become outdated and we may not be able to make timely modifications to support our products and services.
We rely on the efficient and uninterrupted operation of complex information technology systems. All information technology systems are potentially vulnerable to damage or interruption from a variety of sources. As part of our business, we maintain large amounts of personal information on consumers. While we believe we have appropriate information security policies and systems to prevent unauthorized disclosure, there can be no assurance that unauthorized disclosure, either through the actions of third parties or employees, will not occur. Unauthorized disclosure could adversely affect our reputation and expose us to material claims for damages.
In addition, we are in the process of upgrading certain of our information systems that have been in place for a number of years. The implementation of these technological improvements is complex, expensive and time consuming. If we fail to timely and successfully implement the new technology systems, or if the systems do not operate as expected, it could have an adverse impact on our business, business prospects and results of operations.
To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mgic-investment-corporation-reports-second-quarter-2016-results-300300318.html
SOURCE
Investor Contact: Michael J. Zimmerman, Investor Relations, (414) 347-6596, mike.zimmerman@mgic.com, Media Contact: Katie Monfre, Corporate Communications, (414) 347-2650, katie.monfre@mgic.com