UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
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
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
(414) 347-6480
Item 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits | ||||||||
Item 12. Results of Operations and Financial Condition | ||||||||
SIGNATURES | ||||||||
INDEX TO EXHIBITS |
Item 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits
(c) Exhibits
Pursuant to General Instruction B.6 to Form 8-K, the Companys 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.
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 | ||||
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.) |
Exhibit 99
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, MGICs 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 Corporations 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 nations 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 companys quarterly results. The call is being webcast and can be accessed at the companys website at www.mgic.com. The webcast is also being distributed over CCBNs Investor Distribution Network to both institutional and individual investors. Investors can listen to the call through CCBNs individual investor center at www.companyboardroom.com or by visiting any of the investor sites in CCBNs 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 Companys website at www.mgic.com under Investor News and Financials News Releases.
Safe Harbor Statement
Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors:
The Companys 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 Companys losses may increase.
Losses result from events that reduce a borrowers 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 Companys 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 Companys risk in force written through the flow channel, and more than half of the Companys 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 Moodys 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 Companys relationships with its customers could reduce the Companys 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 lenders 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 Companys 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 Companys 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 Companys 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 Companys 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 insurers 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 insurers overall results from such a lower contribution may be offset by decreases in the mortgage insurers expenses that are unrelated to claim or default activity, including those related to lower volume.
The Companys 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 Companys 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 Macs 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 lenders 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 Companys MGIC subsidiary, have been involved in litigation alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA. MGICs 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 MGICs best available rate based on credit scores obtained by MGIC. (A portion of MGICs 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 Floridas Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Act and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for such violation. In December 2003, the Court denied MGICs 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 Companys 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 insurers payment of referral fees, had this regulation been adopted in this form, the Companys 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 companys 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 Companys 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 (000s) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 (000s) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 |