e10vq
FORM 10-Q
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
|
|
|
þ |
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the quarterly period ended MARCH 31, 2006
|
|
|
o |
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from
to
Commission file number 1-10816
MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
WISCONSIN
|
|
39-1486475 |
(State or other jurisdiction of
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer |
incorporation or organization)
|
|
Identification No.) |
|
|
|
250 E. KILBOURN AVENUE
|
|
53202 |
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
|
|
(Zip Code) |
(Address of principal executive offices) |
|
|
(414) 347-6480
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for
such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer,
or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer þ |
Accelerated filer o |
Non-accelerated filer o |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act).
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuers classes of common stock, as of
the latest practicable date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CLASS OF STOCK |
|
PAR VALUE |
|
DATE |
|
NUMBER OF SHARES |
Common stock |
|
$1.00 |
|
04/30/06 |
|
87,433,075 |
MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 2
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
March 31, 2006 (Unaudited) and December 31, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
(In thousands of dollars) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment portfolio: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities, available-for-sale, at market value: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed maturities |
|
$ |
5,234,591 |
|
|
$ |
5,292,942 |
|
Equity securities |
|
|
2,489 |
|
|
|
2,488 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment portfolio |
|
|
5,237,080 |
|
|
|
5,295,430 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
206,595 |
|
|
|
195,256 |
|
Accrued investment income |
|
|
66,265 |
|
|
|
66,369 |
|
Reinsurance recoverable on loss reserves |
|
|
14,039 |
|
|
|
14,787 |
|
Prepaid reinsurance premiums |
|
|
9,110 |
|
|
|
9,608 |
|
Premiums receivable |
|
|
92,784 |
|
|
|
91,547 |
|
Home office and equipment, net |
|
|
32,579 |
|
|
|
32,666 |
|
Deferred insurance policy acquisition costs |
|
|
16,934 |
|
|
|
18,416 |
|
Investments in joint ventures |
|
|
472,207 |
|
|
|
481,778 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
176,625 |
|
|
|
151,712 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
6,324,218 |
|
|
$ |
6,357,569 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss reserves |
|
$ |
1,103,557 |
|
|
$ |
1,124,454 |
|
Unearned premiums |
|
|
160,130 |
|
|
|
159,823 |
|
Short- and long-term debt (note 2) |
|
|
597,674 |
|
|
|
685,163 |
|
Income taxes payable |
|
|
114,878 |
|
|
|
62,006 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
152,453 |
|
|
|
161,068 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
2,128,692 |
|
|
|
2,192,514 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contingencies (note 3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $1 par value, shares authorized
300,000,000; shares issued, 3/31/06 - 122,766,397
12/31/05 - 122,549,285;
shares outstanding, 3/31/06 - 87,266,998
12/31/05 - 88,046,430 |
|
|
122,766 |
|
|
|
122,549 |
|
Paid-in capital |
|
|
273,840 |
|
|
|
280,052 |
|
Treasury stock (shares at cost, 3/31/06 - 35,499,399
12/31/05 - 34,502,855) |
|
|
(1,907,942 |
) |
|
|
(1,834,434 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive income, net of tax (note 5) |
|
|
45,975 |
|
|
|
77,499 |
|
Retained earnings |
|
|
5,660,887 |
|
|
|
5,519,389 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity |
|
|
4,195,526 |
|
|
|
4,165,055 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity |
|
$ |
6,324,218 |
|
|
$ |
6,357,569 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
Page 3
MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
Three Months Ended March 31, 2006 and 2005
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
(In thousands of dollars, except per share data) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Premiums written: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct |
|
$ |
333,576 |
|
|
$ |
342,287 |
|
Assumed |
|
|
397 |
|
|
|
202 |
|
Ceded |
|
|
(33,501 |
) |
|
|
(30,250 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums written |
|
|
300,472 |
|
|
|
312,239 |
|
(Increase) decrease in unearned premiums, net |
|
|
(805 |
) |
|
|
3,840 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums earned |
|
|
299,667 |
|
|
|
316,079 |
|
Investment income, net of expenses |
|
|
57,964 |
|
|
|
57,003 |
|
Realized investment gains, net |
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
1,565 |
|
Other revenue |
|
|
11,314 |
|
|
|
10,261 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
369,032 |
|
|
|
384,908 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Losses and expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Losses incurred, net |
|
|
114,885 |
|
|
|
98,866 |
|
Underwriting and other expenses, net |
|
|
74,265 |
|
|
|
67,895 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
9,315 |
|
|
|
10,722 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total losses and expenses |
|
|
198,465 |
|
|
|
177,483 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before tax and joint ventures |
|
|
170,567 |
|
|
|
207,425 |
|
Provision for income tax |
|
|
46,166 |
|
|
|
59,660 |
|
Income from joint ventures, net of tax |
|
|
39,052 |
|
|
|
34,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
163,453 |
|
|
$ |
182,013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share (note 4): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
1.89 |
|
|
$ |
1.91 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
1.87 |
|
|
$ |
1.90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares
outstanding diluted (shares in
thousands, note 4) |
|
|
87,227 |
|
|
|
95,784 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends per share |
|
$ |
0.2500 |
|
|
$ |
0.0750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
Page 4
MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Three Months Ended March 31, 2006 and 2005
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
(In thousands of dollars) |
|
Cash flows from operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
163,453 |
|
|
$ |
182,013 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash
provided by operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of deferred insurance policy
acquisition costs |
|
|
3,521 |
|
|
|
5,632 |
|
Increase in deferred insurance policy
acquisition costs |
|
|
(2,039 |
) |
|
|
(4,581 |
) |
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
6,854 |
|
|
|
4,519 |
|
Decrease in accrued investment income |
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
3,295 |
|
Decrease in reinsurance recoverable on loss reserves |
|
|
748 |
|
|
|
1,069 |
|
Decrease in prepaid reinsurance premiums |
|
|
498 |
|
|
|
492 |
|
(Increase) decrease in premium receivable |
|
|
(1,237 |
) |
|
|
7,911 |
|
Decrease in loss reserves |
|
|
(20,897 |
) |
|
|
(51,494 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in unearned premiums |
|
|
307 |
|
|
|
(4,332 |
) |
Increase in income taxes payable |
|
|
50,006 |
|
|
|
44,834 |
|
Equity earnings in joint ventures |
|
|
(57,251 |
) |
|
|
(49,872 |
) |
Distributions from joint ventures |
|
|
67,862 |
|
|
|
60,375 |
|
Other |
|
|
(10,796 |
) |
|
|
36,503 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
|
201,133 |
|
|
|
236,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of fixed maturities |
|
|
(386,062 |
) |
|
|
(289,505 |
) |
Additional investment in joint ventures |
|
|
(984 |
) |
|
|
(1,760 |
) |
Sale of equity securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
616 |
|
Proceeds from sale of fixed maturities |
|
|
350,525 |
|
|
|
85,089 |
|
Proceeds from maturity of fixed maturities |
|
|
40,125 |
|
|
|
49,372 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities |
|
|
3,604 |
|
|
|
(156,188 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid to shareholders |
|
|
(21,954 |
) |
|
|
(7,201 |
) |
Net (repayment of) proceeds from short-term debt |
|
|
(89,583 |
) |
|
|
14,947 |
|
Reissuance of treasury stock |
|
|
1,275 |
|
|
|
570 |
|
Repurchase of common stock |
|
|
(91,534 |
) |
|
|
(68,567 |
) |
Common stock issued |
|
|
5,532 |
|
|
|
703 |
|
Excess tax benefits from share-based payment arrangements |
|
|
2,866 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in financing activities |
|
|
(193,398 |
) |
|
|
(59,548 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
11,339 |
|
|
|
20,628 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
195,256 |
|
|
|
166,468 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
206,595 |
|
|
$ |
187,096 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
Page 5
MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
March 31, 2006
(Unaudited)
Note 1 Basis of presentation and summary of certain significant accounting policies
The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of MGIC Investment Corporation
(the Company) and its wholly-owned subsidiaries have been prepared in accordance with the
instructions to Form 10-Q and do not include all of the other information and disclosures required
by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These statements
should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto for the
year ended December 31, 2005 included in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for that year.
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have not been audited by independent
auditors in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United
States), but in the opinion of management such financial statements include all adjustments,
consisting only of normal recurring accruals, necessary to summarize fairly the Companys financial
position and results of operations. The results of operations for the three months ended March 31,
2006 may not be indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31,
2006.
New Accounting Standards
In February 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 155, Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial
Instruments an amendment of FASB Statements No. 133 and 140 (SFAS 155). SFAS 155 permits an
entity to measure at fair value any financial instrument that contains an embedded derivative that
otherwise would require bifurcation. This Statement is effective for all financial instruments
acquired or issued after the beginning of an entitys first fiscal year that begins after September
15, 2006. The Company is currently evaluating the provisions of SFAS 155 and believes that
adoption will not have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations.
In July 2005, the FASB published an Exposure Draft of a proposed Interpretation, Accounting
for Uncertain Tax Positions. The Exposure Draft seeks to
reduce the significant diversity in practice associated with recognition and measurement in the
accounting for income taxes. The FASB has reopened deliberations to consider comments that were
received regarding the Exposure Draft. At this time, the FASB has decided that the final
interpretation would apply to all tax positions accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 109,
Accounting for Income Taxes. The Exposure Draft requires that a tax position meet a probable
recognition threshold for the benefit of the uncertain tax position to be recognized in the
financial statements. When evaluating a tax position for recognition and measurement, an entity
should presume that a taxing authority will examine a tax position. The interpretation will most
probably adopt a
Page 6
benefit recognition model with a two-step approach, a more-likely-than-not
threshold for recognition and derecognition, and a best estimate measurement attribute. It is
expected to be finalized during the second quarter of 2006, with an effective date as of the start
of the first annual period beginning after December 31, 2006. The Company will continue to evaluate
the impact, if any, this proposed Interpretation would have on the Companys results of operations
and financial position.
Reclassifications
Certain reclassifications have been made in the accompanying financial statements to 2005
amounts to conform to 2006 presentation.
Note 2 Short- and long-term debt
The Company has a $300 million commercial paper program, which is rated A-1 by Standard and
Poors (S&P) and P-1 by Moodys. At March 31, 2006 and 2005, the Company had $100.0 and $155.5
million in commercial paper outstanding with a weighted average interest rate of 4.74% and 2.85%,
respectively.
In March of 2005, the Company obtained a $300 million, five year revolving credit facility,
expiring in 2010. The facility replaced the previous $285 million facility that was due to expire
in 2006. Under the terms of the credit facility, the Company must maintain shareholders equity of
at least $2.25 billion and Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC) must maintain a
risk-to-capital ratio of not more than 22:1 and maintain policyholders position (which includes
MGICs statutory surplus and its contingency reserve) of not less than the amount required by
Wisconsin insurance regulation. At March 31, 2006, these requirements were met. The facility will
continue to be used as a liquidity back up facility for the outstanding commercial paper. The
remaining credit available under the facility after reduction for the amount necessary to support
the commercial paper was $200.0 million and $144.5 million at March 31, 2006 and 2005,
respectively.
The Company had $300 million, 5.375% Senior Notes due in November 2015 and $200 million, 6%
Senior Notes due in March 2007 outstanding at March 31, 2006. At March 31, 2005 the Company had
$300 million, 7.5% Senior Notes due in October 2005 and $200 million, 6% senior Notes due in March
2007. In October 2005 the Company issued, in a public offering, $300 million, 5.375% Senior Notes
due in 2015. Interest on the Notes is payable semiannually in arrears on May 1 and November 1 of
each year, beginning on May 1, 2006. The Senior Notes were rated A-1 by Moodys, A by S&P
and A+ by Fitch. The Company utilized the proceeds from the sale of these Senior Notes, together
with available cash, to repay the $300 million, 7.5% Senior Notes that came due October 17, 2005.
At March 31, 2006 and 2005, the market value of the outstanding debt was $588.4million and $667.3
million, respectively.
Interest payments on all long-term and short-term debt were $8.3 million and $8.6 million for
the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
During the first quarter of 2006, an outstanding interest rate swap contract was terminated.
This swap was placed into service to coincide with the committed credit
Page 7
facility, used as a backup
for the commercial paper program. Under the terms of the swap contract, the Company paid a fixed
rate of 5.07% and received a variable interest rate based on the London Inter Bank Offering Rate
(LIBOR). The swap had an expiration date coinciding with the maturity of the credit facility and
was designated as a cash flow hedge. At March 31, 2006 the Company has no interest rate swaps
outstanding.
Expense (income) on the interest rate swaps for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005
of approximately ($0.1) million and $0.5 million, respectively, was included in interest expense.
Gains or losses arising from the amendment or termination of interest rate swaps are deferred and
amortized to interest expense over the life of the hedged items.
Note 3 Litigation and contingencies
The Company is involved in litigation in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of
management, the ultimate resolution of this pending litigation will not have a material adverse
effect on the financial position or results of operations of the Company.
Consumers are bringing a growing number of lawsuits against home mortgage lenders and
settlement service providers. In recent years, seven mortgage insurers, including MGIC, have been
involved in litigation alleging violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly known as FCRA. MGICs settlement of class action litigation
against it under RESPA became final in October 2003. MGIC settled the named plaintiffs claims in
litigation against it under FCRA in late December 2004 following denial of class certification in
June 2004. There can be no assurance that MGIC will not be subject to litigation under RESPA or
FCRA or that the outcome of any such litigation would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company. In August 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided a case
under FCRA to which the Company was not a party that may make it more likely that the Company will
be subject to future litigation regarding when notices to borrowers are required by FCRA.
In June 2005, in response to a letter from the New York Insurance Department (NYID), the Company
provided information regarding captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements and other types of
arrangements in which lenders receive compensation. In February 2006, the NYID requested MGIC to
review its premium rates in New York and to file adjusted rates based on recent years experience
or to explain why such
experience would not alter rates. In March 2006, MGIC advised the NYID that it believes its premium
rates are reasonable and that, given the nature of mortgage insurance risk, premium rates should
not be determined only by the experience of recent years. In February 2006, in response to an
administrative subpoena from the Minnesota Department of Commerce (the MDC), which regulates
insurance, the Company provided the MDC with information about captive mortgage reinsurance and
certain other matters. Insurance departments or other officials in other states may also seek
information about or investigate captive mortgage reinsurance.
The anti-referral fee provisions of RESPA provide that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as well as the insurance commissioner or attorney general of any state may
bring an action to enjoin violations of these provisions of
Page 8
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 the Company believes its captive reinsurance arrangements are in
conformity with applicable laws and regulations, it is not possible to predict the outcome of any
such reviews or investigations nor is it possible to predict their effect on the Company or the
mortgage insurance industry.
Under its contract underwriting agreements, the Company may be required to provide certain
remedies to its customers if certain standards relating to the quality of the Companys
underwriting work are not met. The cost of remedies provided by the Company to customers for
failing to meet these standards has not been material to the Companys financial position or
results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been conducting an examination of the federal income
tax returns of the Company for 2000 and 2001. During 2005, the IRS expanded the examination to
include the 2002, 2003 and 2004 taxable years. In this examination, they have summonsed documents
which include communications with outside legal counsel engaged by the Company. Management believes
that these documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege and has declined to waive that
privilege, so it has not provided them to the IRS. The documents relate to a portfolio of
investments in the residual interests of Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMICs). This
portfolio has been managed and maintained during years prior to, during and subsequent to the
examination period. The tax returns have included the flow through of income and losses from these
investments in the computation of taxable income. The IRS has indicated that they do not believe
that the Company has established sufficient tax basis in the REMIC residual interests to deduct
some portion of the flow through losses from income. To date, they have not provided a detailed
explanation of their position or the calculation of the dollar amount of any potential adjustment.
The Company will contest any such proposal to increase taxable income and believes that income
taxes related to these years have been properly provided for in the financial statements.
Note 4 Earnings per share
The Companys basic and diluted earnings per share (EPS) have been calculated in accordance
with SFAS No. 128, Earnings Per Share. The Companys net income is the
same for both basic and diluted EPS. Basic EPS is based on the weighted average number of common
shares outstanding. Diluted EPS is based on the weighted average number of common shares
outstanding plus common stock equivalents which include stock awards and stock options. The
following is a reconciliation of the weighted average number of shares used for basic EPS and
diluted EPS.
Page 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Weighted-average shares Basic |
|
|
86,577 |
|
|
|
95,265 |
|
Common stock equivalents |
|
|
650 |
|
|
|
519 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average shares Diluted |
|
|
87,227 |
|
|
|
95,784 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 5 Comprehensive income
The Companys total comprehensive income, as calculated per SFAS No. 130, Reporting
Comprehensive Income, was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
(In thousands of dollars) |
|
Net income |
|
$ |
163,453 |
|
|
$ |
182,013 |
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
|
(31,523 |
) |
|
|
(56,692 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income |
|
$ |
131,930 |
|
|
$ |
125,321 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) (net of tax): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in unrealized net derivative gains
and losses |
|
$ |
777 |
|
|
$ |
711 |
|
Amortization of deferred losses on derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
203 |
|
Change in unrealized gains and losses
on investments |
|
|
(32,336 |
) |
|
|
(58,356 |
) |
Other |
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
$ |
(31,523 |
) |
|
$ |
(56,692 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
$ |
(31,523 |
) |
|
$ |
(56,692 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At March 31, 2006, accumulated other comprehensive income of $46.0 million included $45.6
million of net unrealized gains on investments and $0.4 million relating to the accumulated other
comprehensive gain of the Companys joint venture investment, all net of tax. At December 31, 2005,
accumulated other comprehensive income of $77.5 million included $77.9 million of net unrealized
gains on investments, ($0.8) million relating to
derivative financial instruments and $0.4 million relating to the accumulated other comprehensive
loss of the Companys joint venture investment.
Note 6 Benefit Plans
The following table provides the components of net periodic benefit cost for the pension and
other postretirement benefit plans:
Page 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Postretirement |
|
|
|
Pension Benefits |
|
|
Benefits |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
(In thousands of dollars) |
|
Service cost |
|
$ |
2,364 |
|
|
$ |
2,210 |
|
|
$ |
898 |
|
|
$ |
919 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
2,627 |
|
|
|
2,371 |
|
|
|
1,024 |
|
|
|
984 |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
(3,709 |
) |
|
|
(3,355 |
) |
|
|
(649 |
) |
|
|
(560 |
) |
Recognized net actuarial loss (gain) |
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
127 |
|
Amortization of transition obligation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost |
|
$ |
1,596 |
|
|
$ |
1,411 |
|
|
$ |
1,455 |
|
|
$ |
1,541 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company previously disclosed in its financial statements for the year ended December
31, 2005 that it expected to contribute approximately $10.3 million and $4.6 million, respectively,
to its pension and postretirement plans in 2006. As of March 31, 2006, no contributions have been
made.
Note 7
Share-based compensation plans
The Company has certain share-based compensation plans. Effective January 1, 2006, the
Company adopted the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123R, Share-Based Payment,
under the modified prospective method, accordingly prior period amounts have not been restated.
SFAS No. 123R requires that the compensation cost relating to share-based payment transactions be
measured based on the fair value of the equity or liability instrument issued and be recognized in
the financial statements of the company. This statement is a revision of SFAS No. 123, Accounting
for Stock-Based Compensation. The fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123 were
voluntarily adopted by the Company in 2003 prospectively to all employee awards granted or modified
on or after January 1, 2003. The adoption of SFAS No. 123R and SFAS No. 123 did not have a
material effect on the Companys results of operations or its financial position. Under the fair
value method, compensation cost is measured at the grant date based on the fair value of the award
and is recognized over the service period which generally corresponds to the vesting period.
Awards under the Companys plans generally vest over periods ranging from one to five years.
The cost related to stock-based employee compensation included in the determination of net
income for 2005 was less than that which would have been recognized if the fair
value based method had been applied to all awards since the original effective date of SFAS No.
123. The following table illustrates the effect on net income and earnings per share if the fair
value method had been applied to all outstanding and unvested awards for the three months ended
March 31, 2005.
Page 11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
(in thousands of dollars, |
|
|
|
except per share data) |
|
Net income, as reported |
|
$ |
182,013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add stock-based employee compensation
expense included in reported net income,
net of tax |
|
|
2,522 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deduct stock-based employee compensation
expense determined under fair value method
for all awards, net of tax |
|
|
(3,622 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net income |
|
$ |
180,913 |
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share: |
|
|
|
|
Basic, as reported |
|
$ |
1.91 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic, pro forma |
|
$ |
1.90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted, as reported |
|
$ |
1.90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted, pro-forma |
|
$ |
1.89 |
|
|
|
|
|
The compensation cost that has been charged against income for the share-based plans
was $7.9 million and $3.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
The related income tax benefit recognized for the share-based compensation plans was $2.8 million
and $1.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
The Company has stock incentive plans that were adopted in 1991 and 2002. When the 2002 plan
was adopted, no further awards could be made under the 1991 plan. The maximum number of shares
covered by awards under the 2002 plan is the total of 7.1 million shares plus the number of shares
that must be purchased at a purchase price of not less than the fair market value of the shares as
a condition to the award of restricted stock under the 2002 plan. The maximum number of shares of
restricted stock that can be awarded under the 2002 plan is 5.9 million shares. Both plans provide
for the award of stock options with maximum terms of 10 years and for the grant of restricted stock
or
restricted stock units, and the 2002 plan also provides for the grant of stock appreciation rights.
The exercise price of options is the closing price of the common stock on the New York Stock
Exchange on the date of grant. The vesting provisions of options and restricted stock are
determined at the time of grant. New shares are issued when stock option grants under the 1991 plan
are exercised. Treasury shares are used for awards under the 2002 plan. Directors may receive
awards under the 2002 plan and were eligible for awards of restricted stock under the 1991 plan.
A summary of option activity in the stock incentive plans during 2006 is as follows:
Page 12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
Shares |
|
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
Subject |
|
|
|
Price |
|
|
to Option |
|
Outstanding, December 31, 2005 |
|
$ |
54.19 |
|
|
|
3,274,731 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised |
|
|
39.20 |
|
|
|
(238,437 |
) |
Forfeited or expired |
|
|
54.80 |
|
|
|
(13,930 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding, March 31, 2006 |
|
$ |
55.37 |
|
|
|
3,022,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the three months ended March 31, 2006, the total intrinsic value of options
exercised (i.e., the difference in the market price at exercise and the price paid by the employee
to exercise the option) was $6.4 million, the total amount of cash received from exercise of
options was $6.7 million and the related net tax benefit realized from the exercise of those stock
options was $2.2 million.
The following is a summary of stock options outstanding at March 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Outstanding |
|
|
Options Exercisable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
Exercise |
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining |
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining |
|
|
Average |
|
Price |
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
Exercise |
|
Range |
|
Shares |
|
|
Life (years) |
|
|
Price |
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Life (years) |
|
|
Price |
|
$33.81 - 47.31 |
|
|
1,319,214 |
|
|
|
4.5 |
|
|
$ |
44.18 |
|
|
|
785,224 |
|
|
|
4.2 |
|
|
$ |
43.80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$53.70 - 68.63 |
|
|
1,703,150 |
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
$ |
64.03 |
|
|
|
1,225,250 |
|
|
|
5.6 |
|
|
$ |
62.90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
3,022,364 |
|
|
|
5.4 |
|
|
$ |
55.37 |
|
|
|
2,010,474 |
|
|
|
5.0 |
|
|
$ |
55.44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The aggregate intrinsic value of options outstanding at March 31, 2006 was $34
million. The aggregate intrinsic value of options exercisable was $22.5 million. The aggregate
intrinsic value represents the total pretax intrinsic value based on the Companys closing stock
price of $66.63 as of March 31, 2006 which would have been received by the option holders had all
option holders exercised their options on that date.
A summary of restricted stock or restricted stock units during 2006 is as follows:
Page 13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Market |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value |
|
|
Shares |
|
Restricted stock outstanding at December 31, 2005 |
|
$ |
60.50 |
|
|
|
898,671 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted |
|
|
64.66 |
|
|
|
564,350 |
|
Vested |
|
|
56.87 |
|
|
|
(262,982 |
) |
Forfeited |
|
|
61.53 |
|
|
|
(6,069 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock outstanding at March 31, 2006 |
|
$ |
63.26 |
|
|
|
1,193,970 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At March 31, 2006, 4,522,068 shares were available for future grant under the 2002
stock incentive plan. Of the shares available for future grant, 4,441,158 are available for
restricted stock awards.
As of March 31, 2006, there was $81.5 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related
to nonvested share-based compensation agreements granted under the Plan. That cost is expected to
be recognized over a weighted-average period of 3.1 years. The total fair value of shares vested
during the three months ended March 31, 2006 was $17.1 million.
For purposes of determining the pro forma net income disclosure in Note 1, the fair value of
options granted was estimated at grant date using the binomial option pricing model for the 2004
options and the Black-Scholes model for the 2003 and prior options with the following weighted
average assumptions for each year:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grants Issued in Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2004 |
|
2003 |
Risk free interest rate |
|
|
3.27 |
% |
|
|
2.91 |
% |
Expected life |
|
5.50 |
years |
4.87 |
years |
Expected volatility |
|
|
30.20 |
% |
|
|
29.40 |
% |
Expected dividend yield |
|
|
0.25 |
% |
|
|
0.25 |
% |
Fair value of each option |
|
$ |
21.68 |
|
|
$ |
13.12 |
|
Note 8 Condensed consolidating financial statements
The following condensed financial information sets forth, on a consolidating basis, the
balance sheet, statement of operations, and statement of cash flows for MGIC Investment Corporation
(Parent Company), which represents the Companys investments in all of its subsidiaries under the
equity method, Mortgage Guaranty
Insurance Corporation and Subsidiaries (MGIC Consolidated), and all other subsidiaries
Page 14
of the
Company (Other) on a combined basis. The eliminations column represents entries eliminating
investments in subsidiaries, intercompany balances, and intercompany revenues and expenses.
Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheets
At March 31, 2006
(in thousands of dollars)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent |
|
|
MGIC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Total |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments |
|
$ |
2,526 |
|
|
$ |
4,970,161 |
|
|
$ |
264,393 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
5,237,080 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
3,434 |
|
|
|
196,187 |
|
|
|
6,974 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
206,595 |
|
Reinsurance recoverable on loss reserves |
|
|
|
|
|
|
75,188 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
(61,181 |
) |
|
|
14,039 |
|
Prepaid reinsurance premiums |
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,377 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(9,271 |
) |
|
|
9,110 |
|
Deferred insurance policy acquisition costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,934 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,934 |
|
Investments in subsidiaries/joint ventures |
|
|
4,776,624 |
|
|
|
472,207 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,776,624 |
) |
|
|
472,207 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
18,871 |
|
|
|
381,768 |
|
|
|
26,104 |
|
|
|
(58,490 |
) |
|
|
368,253 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
4,801,455 |
|
|
$ |
6,130,822 |
|
|
$ |
297,507 |
|
|
$ |
(4,905,566 |
) |
|
$ |
6,324,218 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss reserves |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,103,557 |
|
|
$ |
61,181 |
|
|
$ |
(61,181 |
) |
|
$ |
1,103,557 |
|
Unearned premiums |
|
|
|
|
|
|
160,130 |
|
|
|
9,271 |
|
|
|
(9,271 |
) |
|
|
160,130 |
|
Short- and long-term debt |
|
|
597,635 |
|
|
|
9,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,325 |
) |
|
|
597,674 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
8,294 |
|
|
|
276,285 |
|
|
|
18,147 |
|
|
|
(35,395 |
) |
|
|
267,331 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
605,929 |
|
|
|
1,549,336 |
|
|
|
88,599 |
|
|
|
(115,172 |
) |
|
|
2,128,692 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity |
|
|
4,195,526 |
|
|
|
4,581,486 |
|
|
|
208,908 |
|
|
|
(4,790,394 |
) |
|
|
4,195,526 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity |
|
$ |
4,801,455 |
|
|
$ |
6,130,822 |
|
|
$ |
297,507 |
|
|
$ |
(4,905,566 |
) |
|
$ |
6,324,218 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheets
At December 31, 2005
(in thousands of dollars)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent |
|
|
MGIC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Total |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments |
|
$ |
2,570 |
|
|
$ |
5,047,475 |
|
|
$ |
245,385 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
5,295,430 |
|
Cash |
|
|
211 |
|
|
|
176,370 |
|
|
|
18,675 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
195,256 |
|
Reinsurance recoverable on loss reserves |
|
|
|
|
|
|
78,097 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
(63,346 |
) |
|
|
14,787 |
|
Prepaid reinsurance premiums |
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,521 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(7,916 |
) |
|
|
9,608 |
|
Deferred insurance policy acquisition costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,416 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,416 |
|
Investments in subsidiaries/joint ventures |
|
|
4,842,932 |
|
|
|
481,778 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,842,932 |
) |
|
|
481,778 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
13,542 |
|
|
|
356,624 |
|
|
|
28,274 |
|
|
|
(56,146 |
) |
|
|
342,294 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
4,859,255 |
|
|
$ |
6,176,281 |
|
|
$ |
292,373 |
|
|
$ |
(4,970,340 |
) |
|
$ |
6,357,569 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss reserves |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,124,454 |
|
|
$ |
63,346 |
|
|
$ |
(63,346 |
) |
|
$ |
1,124,454 |
|
Unearned premiums |
|
|
|
|
|
|
159,823 |
|
|
|
7,916 |
|
|
|
(7,916 |
) |
|
|
159,823 |
|
Short- and long-term debt |
|
|
685,124 |
|
|
|
9,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,325 |
) |
|
|
685,163 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
9,076 |
|
|
|
232,109 |
|
|
|
13,435 |
|
|
|
(31,546 |
) |
|
|
223,074 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
694,200 |
|
|
|
1,525,750 |
|
|
|
84,697 |
|
|
|
(112,133 |
) |
|
|
2,192,514 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity |
|
|
4,165,055 |
|
|
|
4,650,531 |
|
|
|
207,676 |
|
|
|
(4,858,207 |
) |
|
|
4,165,055 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity |
|
$ |
4,859,255 |
|
|
$ |
6,176,281 |
|
|
$ |
292,373 |
|
|
$ |
(4,970,340 |
) |
|
$ |
6,357,569 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 15
Condensed Consolidating Statements of Operations
Three months ended March 31, 2006
(in thousands of dollars)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent |
|
|
MGIC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Total |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums written |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
282,653 |
|
|
$ |
17,841 |
|
|
$ |
(22 |
) |
|
$ |
300,472 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums earned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
283,202 |
|
|
|
16,487 |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
299,667 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in undistributed
net income of subsidiaries |
|
|
(35,515 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,515 |
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends received from subsidiaries |
|
|
205,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(205,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Investment income, net of expenses |
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
55,072 |
|
|
|
2,793 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57,964 |
|
Realized investment gains, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87 |
|
Other revenue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,665 |
|
|
|
8,649 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,314 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
169,584 |
|
|
|
340,996 |
|
|
|
27,959 |
|
|
|
(169,507 |
) |
|
|
369,032 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Losses and expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Losses incurred, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
110,599 |
|
|
|
4,286 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
114,885 |
|
Underwriting and other expenses |
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
54,108 |
|
|
|
20,126 |
|
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
74,265 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
9,315 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,315 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total losses and expenses |
|
|
9,379 |
|
|
|
164,707 |
|
|
|
24,412 |
|
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
198,465 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before tax and joint ventures |
|
|
160,205 |
|
|
|
176,289 |
|
|
|
3,547 |
|
|
|
(169,474 |
) |
|
|
170,567 |
|
Provision (credit) for income tax |
|
|
(3,248 |
) |
|
|
48,738 |
|
|
|
659 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
46,166 |
|
Income from joint ventures, net of tax |
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,052 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,052 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
163,453 |
|
|
$ |
166,603 |
|
|
$ |
2,888 |
|
|
$ |
(169,491 |
) |
|
$ |
163,453 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Condensed Consolidating Statements of Operations
Three months ended March 31, 2005
(in thousands of dollars)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent |
|
|
MGIC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Total |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums written |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
295,405 |
|
|
$ |
16,902 |
|
|
$ |
(68 |
) |
|
$ |
312,239 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums earned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
299,057 |
|
|
|
17,090 |
|
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
316,079 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in undistributed
net income of subsidiaries |
|
|
144,562 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(144,562 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Dividends received from subsidiaries |
|
|
44,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(44,300 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Investment income, net of expenses |
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
54,605 |
|
|
|
2,354 |
|
|
|
(206 |
) |
|
|
57,003 |
|
Realized investment gains, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,549 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,565 |
|
Other revenue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
511 |
|
|
|
9,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,261 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
189,112 |
|
|
|
355,722 |
|
|
|
29,210 |
|
|
|
(189,136 |
) |
|
|
384,908 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Losses and expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Losses incurred, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
94,529 |
|
|
|
4,337 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98,866 |
|
Underwriting and other expenses |
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
49,301 |
|
|
|
18,605 |
|
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
|
67,895 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
10,719 |
|
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(207 |
) |
|
|
10,722 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total losses and expenses |
|
|
10,787 |
|
|
|
144,040 |
|
|
|
22,942 |
|
|
|
(286 |
) |
|
|
177,483 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before tax and joint ventures |
|
|
178,325 |
|
|
|
211,682 |
|
|
|
6,268 |
|
|
|
(188,850 |
) |
|
|
207,425 |
|
Provision (credit) for income tax |
|
|
(3,688 |
) |
|
|
61,827 |
|
|
|
1,518 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
59,660 |
|
Income from joint ventures, net of tax |
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
182,013 |
|
|
$ |
184,103 |
|
|
$ |
4,750 |
|
|
$ |
(188,853 |
) |
|
$ |
182,013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 16
Condensed Consolidating Statements of Cash Flows
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2006
(in thousands of dollars)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent |
|
|
MGIC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Total |
|
Net cash from operating activities: |
|
$ |
199,443 |
(1) |
|
$ |
196,541 |
|
|
$ |
10,149 |
|
|
$ |
(205,000 |
) |
|
$ |
201,133 |
|
Net cash from (used in) investing activities: |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
25,410 |
|
|
|
(21,850 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,604 |
|
Net cash used in financing activities: |
|
|
(196,264 |
) |
|
|
(202,134 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
205,000 |
|
|
|
(193,398 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in Cash |
|
$ |
3,223 |
|
|
$ |
19,817 |
|
|
$ |
(11,701 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
11,339 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes dividends received from subsidiaries of $205,000. |
Condensed Consolidating Statements of Cash Flows
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2005
(in thousands of dollars)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent |
|
|
MGIC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Total |
|
Net cash from operating activities: |
|
$ |
44,074 |
(1) |
|
$ |
228,281 |
|
|
$ |
8,309 |
|
|
$ |
(44,300 |
) |
|
$ |
236,364 |
|
Net cash from (used in) investing activities: |
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
(147,756 |
) |
|
|
(8,493 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(156,188 |
) |
Net cash used in financing activities: |
|
|
(59,548 |
) |
|
|
(44,300 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
44,300 |
|
|
|
(59,548 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (decrease) increase in Cash |
|
$ |
(15,413 |
) |
|
$ |
36,225 |
|
|
$ |
(184 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
20,628 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes dividends received from subsidiaries of $44,300. |
Page 17
ITEM 2. MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Overview
Business and General Environment
The Company, through its subsidiary Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC), is the
leading provider of private mortgage insurance in the United States to the home mortgage lending
industry. The Companys principal products are primary mortgage insurance and pool mortgage
insurance. Primary mortgage insurance may be written through the flow market channel, in which
loans are insured in individual, loan-by-loan transactions. Primary mortgage insurance may also be
written through the bulk market channel, in which portfolios of loans are individually insured in
single, bulk transactions.
The Companys results of operations are affected by:
|
|
Premiums written and earned |
Premiums written and earned in a year are influenced by:
|
o |
|
New insurance written, which increases the size of the
in force book of insurance. New insurance written is
the aggregate principal amount of the mortgages that
are insured during a period and is referred to as
NIW. NIW is affected by many factors, including the
volume of low down payment home mortgage originations
and competition to provide credit enhancement on those
mortgages, including competition from other mortgage
insurers and alternatives to mortgage insurance, such
as piggyback loans. |
|
|
o |
|
Cancellations, which reduce the size of the in force
book of insurance that generates premiums.
Cancellations due to refinancings are affected by the
level of current mortgage interest rates compared to
the mortgage coupon rates throughout the in force
book, as well as by home price appreciation. |
|
|
o |
|
Premium rates, which are affected by the risk
characteristics of the loans insured and the
percentage of coverage on the loans. |
|
|
o |
|
Premiums ceded to reinsurance subsidiaries of certain
mortgage lenders and risk sharing arrangements with
the Federal National Mortgage Association and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (government
sponsored entities or GSEs). |
Premiums are generated by the insurance that is in force during all or
a portion of the period. Hence, lower average insurance in force in
one period compared to another is a factor that will reduce premiums
written and earned, although this effect may be mitigated (or
enhanced) by differences in the average premium rate between the two
periods as well as by premium that is ceded. Also, NIW and
cancellations during a period will generally have a greater effect on
premiums written and earned in subsequent periods than in the period
in which these events occur.
Page 18
The investment portfolio is comprised almost entirely of highly rated, fixed income
securities. The principal factors that influence investment income are the size of the portfolio
and its yield. As measured by amortized cost (which excludes changes in fair market value, such as
from changes in interest rates), the size of the investment portfolio, which is principally held by
MGIC, is mainly a function of cash generated from operations, including investment earnings, less
cash used for non-investment purposes, such as dividends paid to the Company.
Losses incurred are the expense that results from a payment delinquency on an insured loan. As
explained under Critical Accounting Policies in Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005, this expense is recognized only when a loan is delinquent. Losses
incurred are generally affected by:
|
o |
|
The state of the economy, which affects the likelihood that loans will
become delinquent and whether loans that are delinquent cure their
delinquency. The level of delinquencies has historically followed a
seasonal pattern, with a reduction in delinquencies in the first part
of the year, followed by an increase in the latter part of the year. |
|
|
o |
|
The product mix of the in force book, with loans having higher risk
characteristics generally resulting in higher delinquencies and
claims. |
|
|
o |
|
The average claim payment, which is affected by the size of loans
insured (higher average loan amounts tend to increase losses
incurred), the percentage coverage on insured loans (deeper average
coverage tends to increase incurred losses), and housing values, which
affect the Companys ability to mitigate its losses through sales of
properties with delinquent mortgages. |
|
|
o |
|
The distribution of claims over the life of a book. Historically, the
first two years after a loan is originated are a period of relatively
low claims, with claims increasing substantially for several years
subsequent and then declining, although persistency and the condition
of the economy can affect this pattern. |
|
|
Underwriting and other expenses |
The operating expenses of the Company generally vary primarily due to contract underwriting
volume, which in turn generally varies with the level of mortgage origination activity. Contract
underwriting generates fee income included in Other revenue.
|
|
Income from joint ventures |
The Companys results of operations are also affected by income from joint ventures. Joint
venture income principally consists of the aggregate results of the
Page 19
Companys investment in two
less than majority owned joint ventures, Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC
(C-BASS) and Sherman Financial Group LLC (Sherman).
C-BASS: C-BASS is primarily an investor in the credit risk of credit-sensitive single-family
residential mortgages. It finances these activities through borrowings included on its balance
sheet and by securitization activities generally conducted through off-balance sheet entities.
C-BASS generally retains the first-loss and other subordinate securities created in the
securitization. The mortgage loans owned by C-BASS and underlying C-BASSs mortgage securities
investments are generally serviced by Litton Loan Servicing LP, a subsidiary of C-BASS (Litton).
Littons servicing operations primarily support C-BASSs investment in credit risk, and investments
made by funds managed or co-managed by C-BASS, rather than generating fees for servicing loans
owned by third-parties.
In March 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 156, Accounting for Servicing of Financial Assets
(SFAS 156), an amendment to SFAS No.140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial
Assets and Extinguishment of Liabilities. SFAS 156 provides standards for the recognition and
measurement of separately recognized servicing assets and liabilities and provides an approach to
simplify efforts to obtain hedge-like (offset) accounting. It is effective for fiscal years
beginning after September 15, 2006. C-BASS is currently evaluating the effect, if any, the new
standard will have on its results of operations or financial position.
C-BASSs consolidated results of operations are affected by:
|
|
Portfolio revenue, which in turn is primarily affected by net interest
income, gain on sale and liquidation and hedging gains and losses
related to portfolio assets, net of mark-to-market and whole loan
reserve changes. |
|
o |
|
Net interest income |
|
|
|
|
Net interest income is principally a function of the size of C-BASSs
portfolio of whole loans and mortgages and other securities, and the
spread between the interest income generated by these assets and the
interest expense of funding them. Interest income from a particular
security is recognized based on the expected yield for the security. |
|
|
o |
|
Gain on sale and liquidation |
|
|
|
|
Gain on sale and liquidation results from sales of mortgage and other
securities, and liquidation of mortgage loans. Securities may be sold
in the normal course of business or because of the exercise of call
rights by third parties. Mortgage loan liquidations result from loan
payoffs, from foreclosure or from sales of real estate acquired
through foreclosure. |
|
|
Servicing revenue |
|
|
|
Servicing revenue is a function of the unpaid principal balance of
mortgage loans serviced and servicing fees and charges. The unpaid
principal balance of |
Page 20
|
|
mortgage loans serviced by Litton is affected by
mortgages acquired by C-BASS because servicing on subprime and other
mortgages acquired is generally transferred to Litton. Litton also
services or provides special servicing on loans in mortgage securities
owned by funds managed or co-managed by C-BASS. Litton also may obtain
servicing on loans in third party mortgage securities acquired by
C-BASS or when the loans become delinquent by a specified number of
payments (known as special servicing). |
|
|
|
Revenues from money management activities |
|
|
|
These revenues include management fees from C-BASS issued
collateralized bond obligations (CBOs), equity in earnings from
C-BASS investments in investment funds managed or co-managed by C-BASS
and management fees and incentive income from investment funds managed
or co-managed by C-BASS. |
|
|
|
Transaction revenue, which in turn is affected by gain on
securitization and hedging gains and losses related to securitization |
|
o |
|
Gain on securitization |
|
|
|
|
Gain on securitization is a function of the face amount of the
collateral in the securitization and the margin realized in the
securitization. This margin depends on the difference between the
proceeds realized in the securitization and the purchase price paid by
C-BASS for the collateral. The proceeds realized in a securitization
include the value of securities created in the securitization that are
retained by C-BASS. |
|
|
Hedging gains and losses, net of mark-to-market and whole loan reserve changes |
|
|
|
Hedging gains and losses primarily consist of changes in the value of
derivative instruments (including interest rate swaps, interest rate caps and
futures) and short positions, as well as realized gains and losses from the
closing of hedging positions. C-BASS uses derivative instruments and short
sales in a strategy to reduce the impact of changes in interest rates on the
value of its mortgage loans and securities. Changes in value of derivative
instruments are subject to current recognition because C-BASS does not
account for the derivatives as hedges under SFAS No. 133. |
|
|
|
Mortgage and other securities are classified by C-BASS as trading securities
and are carried at fair value, as estimated by C-BASS. Changes in fair value
between period ends (a mark-to-market) are reflected in C-BASSs statement
of operations as unrealized gains or losses. Changes in fair value of
mortgage and other securities may relate to changes in credit spreads or to
changes in the level of interest rates or the slope of the yield curve.
Mortgage loans are not marked-to-market and are carried at the lower of cost
or fair value on a portfolio basis, as estimated by C-BASS. |
|
|
|
During a period in which short-term interest rates decline, in general,
C-BASSs |
Page 21
|
|
hedging positions will decline in value and the change in value, to
the extent that the hedges related to whole loans, will be reflected in
C-BASSs earnings for the period as an unrealized loss. The related increase,
if any, in the value of mortgage loans will not be reflected in earnings but,
absent any countervailing factors, when mortgage loans owned during the
period are securitized, the proceeds realized in the securitization should
increase to reflect the increased value of the collateral. |
Sherman: Sherman is principally engaged in purchasing and collecting for its own account
delinquent consumer receivables, which are primarily unsecured, and in originating and servicing
subprime credit card receivables. The borrowings used to finance these activities are included in
Shermans balance sheet.
Shermans consolidated results of operations are affected by:
|
|
Revenues from delinquent receivable portfolios |
|
|
|
These revenues are the cash collections on such
portfolios, and depend on the aggregate amount of
delinquent receivables owned by Sherman, the type
of receivable and the length of time that the
receivable has been owned by Sherman. |
|
|
|
Amortization of delinquent receivable portfolios |
|
|
|
Amortization is the recovery of the cost to
purchase the receivable portfolios. Amortization
expense is a function of estimated collections
from the portfolios over their estimated lives. If
estimated collections cannot be reasonably
predicted, cost is fully recovered before any net
revenue (the difference between revenues from a
receivable portfolio and that portfolios
amortization) is recognized. |
|
|
|
Credit card interest and fees, along with the
coincident provision for losses for uncollectible
amounts. |
|
|
|
Costs of collection, which include servicing fees
paid to third parties to collect receivables. |
2006 First quarter Results
The Companys results of operations in the first quarter of 2006 were principally affected by:
Losses incurred for the first quarter of 2006 increased compared to the same period in 2005
primarily due to an increase in the estimates regarding how many delinquencies will eventually
result in a claim and how much will be paid on claims when compared to the same period in 2005.
|
|
Premiums written and earned |
Page 22
During the first quarter of 2006, the Companys written and earned premiums were lower than in
the first quarter of 2005 due to a decline in the average insurance in force.
Underwriting expenses increased in the first quarter of 2006 compared to the first quarter of 2005
primarily due to additional amounts related to Myers Internet (acquired in January 2006) and equity
based compensation.
Investment income in the first quarter of 2006 was higher than in the first quarter of 2005
due to a slight increase in the pre-tax yield.
|
|
Income from joint ventures |
Income from joint ventures increased in the first quarter of 2006 compared to the same period
in 2005 due to higher income from each of C-BASS and Sherman.
The discussion below should be read in conjunction with Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2005.
Page 23
RESULTS OF CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS
As discussed under Forward Looking Statements and Risk Factors below, actual results may
differ materially from the results contemplated by forward looking statements. The Company is not
undertaking any obligation to update any forward looking statements it may make in the following
discussion or elsewhere in this document even though these statements may be affected by events or
circumstances occurring after the forward looking statements were made.
NIW
The amount of MGICs NIW (this term is defined in the Overview-Business and General
Environment section) during the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
($ billions) |
|
Flow |
|
$ |
7.9 |
|
|
$ |
8.9 |
|
Bulk |
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total NIW |
|
$ |
10.0 |
|
|
$ |
11.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refinance volume as a % of primary
flow NIW |
|
|
28 |
% |
|
|
33 |
% |
NIW on a flow basis for the first quarter of 2006 was less than the volume during the
first quarter of 2005. The decrease in NIW on a flow basis for the first three months of 2006 was
primarily the result of a decrease in refinance volume. Refinance volume in turn is driven by
changes in interest rates as discussed with respect to cancellations below. For a discussion of
NIW written through the bulk channel, see Bulk transactions below.
Cancellations and insurance in force
NIW and cancellations of primary insurance in force during the three months ended March 31,
2006 and 2005 were as follows:
Page 24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
($ billions) |
|
NIW |
|
$ |
10.0 |
|
|
$ |
11.4 |
|
Cancellations |
|
|
(13.1 |
) |
|
|
(16.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in primary insurance
in force |
|
$ |
(3.1 |
) |
|
$ |
(5.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct primary insurance in force was $166.9 billion at March 31, 2006 compared to
$170.0 billion at December 31, 2005 and $172.1 billion at March 31, 2005.
Cancellation activity has historically been affected by the level of mortgage interest rates
and the level of home price appreciation. Cancellations generally move inversely to the change in
the direction of interest rates, although they generally lag a change in direction. MGICs
persistency rate (percentage of insurance remaining in force from one year prior) was 62.0% at
March 31, 2006, an increase from 61.3% at December 31, 2005 and 59.7% at March 31, 2005. The
Company expects modest improvement in the persistency rate for the remainder of 2006, although this
expectation assumes the absence of significant declines in the level of mortgage interest rates
from their level in late April 2006.
Bulk transactions
NIW for bulk transactions decreased from $2.5 billion during the first quarter of 2005 to $2.1
billion in the first quarter of 2006.
The Companys writings of bulk insurance are in part sensitive to the volume of securitization
transactions involving non-conforming loans. The Companys writings of bulk insurance are also
sensitive to competition from other methods of providing credit enhancement in a securitization,
including an execution in which the subordinate tranches in the securitization rather than mortgage
insurance bear the first loss from mortgage defaults. Competition from such an execution in turn
depends on, among other factors, the yield at which investors are willing to purchase tranches of
the securitization that involve a higher degree of credit risk compared to the yield for tranches
involving the lowest credit risk (the difference in such yields is referred to as the spread) and
the amount of credit for losses that a rating agency will give to mortgage insurance. As the spread
narrows, competition from an execution in which the subordinate tranches bear the first loss
increases. The competitiveness of the mortgage insurance execution in the bulk channel may also be
impacted by changes in the Companys view of the risk of the business, which is affected by the
historical performance of previously insured pools and the Companys expectations for regional and
local real estate values. As a result of the sensitivities discussed above, bulk volume can vary
materially from period to period.
Pool insurance
Page 25
In addition to providing primary insurance coverage, the Company also insures pools of
mortgage loans. New pool risk written during the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005 was $68
million and $48 million, respectively. The Companys direct pool risk in force was $3.0 billion,
$2.9 billion and $3.1 billion at March 31, 2006, December 31, 2005 and March 31, 2005,
respectively. These risk amounts represent pools of loans with contractual aggregate loss limits
and those without such limits. For pools of loans without such limits, risk is estimated based on
the amount that would credit enhance the loans in the pool to a AA level based on a rating agency
model. Under this model, at March 31, 2006 and 2005, for $4.8 billion and $5.1 billion,
respectively, of risk without such limits risk in force was calculated at $470 million and $438
million, respectively. New risk written under this model, for the three months ended March 31,
2006 and 2005, was $1 million and $20 million, respectively.
Net premiums written and earned
Net premiums written and earned during the first quarter of 2006 decreased due to a decline in
the average insurance in force, when compared to the same period in 2005. The Company expects the
average insurance in force during the remainder of 2006 will be slightly lower than during the
comparable period in 2005. As a result, the Company anticipates that net premiums written and
earned for 2006 will be lower than in 2005.
Risk sharing arrangements
For the quarter ended December 31, 2005, approximately 49.0% of the Companys new insurance
written on a flow basis was subject to arrangements with reinsurance subsidiaries of certain
mortgage lenders or risk sharing arrangements with the GSEs compared to 47.0% for the quarter ended
March 31, 2005. The percentage of new insurance written during a period covered by such
arrangements normally increases after the end of the period because, among other reasons, the
transfer of a loan in the secondary market can result in a mortgage insured during a period
becoming part of such an arrangement in a subsequent period. Therefore, the percentage of new
insurance written covered by such arrangements is not shown for the current quarter. Premiums ceded
in such arrangements are reported in the period in which they are ceded regardless of when the
mortgage was insured.
In 2005, to reduce exposure to certain geographical areas and categories of risk, including
Alt A loans (loans with reduced levels of borrower disclosure or verification of borrower
disclosure), the Company entered into two separate excess of loss reinsurance agreements under
which it ceded approximately $85.5 million of risk in force in the aggregate to two special purpose
reinsurance companies (the SPRs). The SPRs are not affiliated with the Company and were formed
solely to enter into the reinsurance arrangements. The SPRs obtained their capital from
institutional investors by issuance of various classes of notes the return on which is linked to
the performance of the reinsured portfolio. The SPRs invested the proceeds of the notes in high
quality short-term investments. Income earned on those investments and reinsurance
premiums paid by the Company are applied to pay interest on the notes as well as expenses of
the SPRs. The investments will be liquidated to pay reinsured loss amounts to the Company. Proceeds
not required to pay reinsured losses will be applied to pay principal on the notes. Premiums ceded
under this agreement have not been
Page 26
material and are included in ceded premiums. The Company may
enter into similar transactions in the future.
Investment income
Investment income for the first quarter of 2006 increased due to a slight increase in the
average investment yield. The portfolios average pre-tax investment yield was 4.35% at March 31,
2006 and 4.27% at March 31, 2005. The portfolios average after-tax investment yield was 3.87% at
March 31, 2006 and 3.79% at March 31, 2005. The Companys net realized gains in the first quarter
of 2006 were immaterial. The Companys net realized gains in the first quarter of 2005 resulted
primarily from the sale of fixed maturities.
Other revenue
The increase in other revenue is primarily the result of additional revenue from the operation
of Myers Internet offset by somewhat lower revenues from other non-insurance operations.
Losses
As discussed in Critical Accounting Policies in Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2005, consistent with industry practices, loss reserves for future claims
are established only for loans that are currently delinquent. (The terms delinquent and default
are used interchangeably by the Company and are defined as an insured loan with a mortgage payment
that is 45 days or more past due.) Loss reserves are established by managements estimating the
number of loans in the Companys inventory of delinquent loans that will not cure their delinquency
(historically, a substantial majority of delinquent loans have cured), which is referred to as the
claim rate, and further estimating the amount that the Company will pay in claims on the loans that
do not cure, which is referred to as claim severity. Estimation of losses that the Company will pay
in the future is inherently judgmental. The conditions that affect the claim rate and claim
severity include the current and future state of the domestic economy and the current and future
strength of local housing markets.
Net losses incurred increased in the first quarter of 2006 compared to the same period in 2005
due to an increase in the estimates regarding how many delinquencies will eventually result in a
claim during the first quarter of 2006 when compared to the same period in 2005 along with a higher
estimate of the amount of the ultimate future payment per claim. The average primary claim paid for
the three months ended March 31, 2006 was $26,857 compared to $26,094 for the same period in 2005.
The Company anticipates that losses incurred in the second quarter of 2006 will be above the
level in the first quarter of 2006.
Information about the composition of the primary insurance default inventory at March 31,
2006, December 31, 2005 and March 31, 2005 appears in the table below.
Page 27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
March 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2005 |
Total loans delinquent |
|
|
76,362 |
|
|
|
85,788 |
|
|
|
78,234 |
|
Percentage of loans delinquent (default rate) |
|
|
6.00 |
% |
|
|
6.58 |
% |
|
|
5.71 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flow loans delinquent |
|
|
41,022 |
|
|
|
47,051 |
|
|
|
41,469 |
|
Percentage of flow loans delinquent (default rate) |
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
|
4.52 |
% |
|
|
3.77 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bulk loans delinquent |
|
|
35,340 |
|
|
|
38,737 |
|
|
|
36,765 |
|
Percentage of bulk loans delinquent (default rate) |
|
|
14.31 |
% |
|
|
14.72 |
% |
|
|
13.59 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A-minus and subprime credit loans delinquent* |
|
|
33,085 |
|
|
|
36,485 |
|
|
|
32,545 |
|
Percentage of A-minus and subprime
credit loans delinquent (default rate) |
|
|
17.32 |
% |
|
|
18.30 |
% |
|
|
15.66 |
% |
|
|
|
* |
|
A portion of A-minus and subprime credit loans is included in flow loans delinquent and the
remainder is included in bulk loans delinquent. Most A-minus and subprime credit loans are written
through the bulk channel. A-minus loans have FICO credit scores of 575-619, as reported to MGIC
at the time a commitment to insure is issued, and subprime loans have FICO credit scores of less
than 575. |
The pool notice inventory decreased from 23,772 at December 31, 2005 to 21,127 at
March 31, 2006; the pool notice inventory was 23,568 at March 31, 2005.
At March 31, 2006, the Company estimates that the default inventory included 3,100 mortgages
on properties in areas within Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas that have been
declared eligible for individual and public assistance by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
as a result of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. For additional information on the potential
effect of these hurricanes, see Deterioration in the domestic economy or changes in the mix of
business may result in more homeowners defaulting and the Companys losses increasing under Risk
Factors, included in the Companys Form 10-K, filed for the year ended December 31, 2005.
Page 28
Information about net losses paid in 2006 and 2005 appears in the table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
Net paid claims ($ millions) |
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Flow |
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
$ |
71 |
|
Bulk |
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
Other |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
135 |
|
|
$ |
149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of March 31, 2006, 79% of the Companys primary insurance in force was written subsequent
to December 31, 2002. On the Companys flow business, the highest claim frequency years have
typically been the third and fourth year after the year of loan origination. However, the pattern
of claims frequency can be affected by many factors, including low persistency (which can have the
effect of accelerating the period in the life of a book during which the highest claim frequency
occurs) and deteriorating economic conditions (which can result in increasing claims following a
period of declining claims). On the Companys bulk business, the period of highest claims frequency
has generally occurred earlier than in the historical pattern on the Companys flow business.
Underwriting and other expenses
Underwriting and other expenses in the first quarter of 2006 were more than the same period in
2005. The increase was primarily due to additional expenses from Myers Internet and equity based
compensation.
Consolidated ratios
The table below presents the Companys consolidated loss, expense and combined ratios for the
periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Consolidated Insurance Operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss ratio |
|
|
38.3 |
% |
|
|
31.3 |
% |
Expense ratio |
|
|
17.5 |
% |
|
|
15.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined ratio |
|
|
55.8 |
% |
|
|
47.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The loss ratio (expressed as a percentage) is the ratio of the sum of incurred losses and
loss adjustment expenses to net premiums earned. The expense ratio (expressed as a percentage) is
the ratio of underwriting expenses to net premiums written. The combined ratio is the sum of the
loss ratio and the expense ratio.
Page 29
Income taxes
The effective tax rate was 27.1% in the first quarter of 2006, compared to 28.8% in the first
quarter of 2005. During those periods, the effective tax rate was below the statutory rate of 35%,
reflecting the benefits recognized from tax preferenced investments. Tax preferenced investments
of the Company include tax-exempt municipal bonds, interests in mortgage related securities with
flow through characteristics and investments in real estate ventures which generate low income
housing credits. The lower effective tax rate in 2006 resulted from a higher percentage of total
income before tax being generated from tax preferenced investments, which resulted from lower
levels of underwriting income.
Joint ventures
The Companys equity in the earnings from the C-BASS and Sherman joint ventures with Radian
Group Inc. (Radian) and certain other joint ventures and investments, accounted for in accordance
with the equity method of accounting, is shown separately, net of tax, on the Companys
consolidated statement of operations. The increase in income from joint ventures from the first
quarter of 2005 to the first quarter of 2006 is primarily the result of increased equity earnings
from each of Sherman and C-BASS.
C-BASS
Summary C-BASS balance sheets and income statements at the dates and for the periods indicated
appear below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary Balance Sheet: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
($ millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whole loans |
|
$ |
1,876 |
|
|
$ |
4,638 |
|
Securities |
|
|
1,790 |
|
|
|
2,054 |
|
Servicing |
|
|
505 |
|
|
|
468 |
|
Other |
|
|
533 |
|
|
|
534 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
4,704 |
|
|
$ |
7,694 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities |
|
$ |
3,889 |
|
|
$ |
6,931 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt* |
|
|
3,305 |
|
|
|
6,434 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owners Equity |
|
|
815 |
|
|
|
763 |
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Most of which is scheduled to mature within one year or less. |
Page 30
The amounts of Total Assets, Whole loans and Debt each decreased during the first
quarter of 2006 primarily as a result of the securitization of whole loans acquired in the fourth
quarter of 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary Income Statement |
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Portfolio |
|
$ |
77.5 |
|
|
$ |
66.8 |
|
Servicing |
|
|
76.7 |
|
|
|
60.2 |
|
Money management |
|
|
6.7 |
|
|
|
7.9 |
|
Transaction |
|
|
10.3 |
|
|
|
12.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue |
|
|
171.2 |
|
|
|
147.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expense |
|
|
105.7 |
|
|
|
86.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before tax |
|
$ |
65.5 |
|
|
$ |
60.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Companys share of pretax income |
|
$ |
30.1 |
|
|
$ |
28.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See OverviewBusiness and General EnvironmentIncome from Joint VenturesC-BASS for a
description of the components of the revenue lines.
The increased contribution for the first quarter of 2006, compared to the same period in 2005,
was primarily due to increased net interest income and servicing revenue. Higher net interest
income was the result of a higher average investment portfolio and higher earnings on trust
deposits for securities serviced by Litton. The increased servicing revenue was due primarily to
Littons higher average servicing portfolio.
The Companys investment in C-BASS on an equity basis at March 31, 2006 was $385.5 million.
The Company received $7.3 million in distributions from C-BASS during the first quarter of 2006.
Sherman
Summary Sherman balance sheets and income statements at the dates and for the periods
indicated appear below.
Page 31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary Balance Sheet: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
|
($ millions) |
Total Assets |
|
$ |
1,007 |
|
|
$ |
979 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities |
|
|
864 |
|
|
|
743 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt |
|
|
757 |
|
|
|
597 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members Equity |
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
236 |
|
In March 2005, Sherman acquired the holding company for Credit One Bank (Credit One),
formerly known as First National Bank of Marin, for a payment of cash and subordinated notes.
Credit One originates and services subprime credit cards. During 2006, the changes in debt and
members equity were primarily related to a capital distribution paid in the first quarter. The
Companys investment in Sherman on an equity basis at March 31, 2006 was $47.2 million. The Company
received $60.5 million in distributions in the first quarter of 2006.
Page 32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary Income Statement |
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
($ millions) |
|
Revenues from receivable portfolios |
|
$ |
281.3 |
|
|
$ |
201.4 |
|
Portfolio amortization |
|
|
101.2 |
|
|
|
69.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues, net of amortization |
|
|
180.1 |
|
|
|
131.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit card interest income and fees |
|
|
73.4 |
|
|
|
5.6 |
|
Other revenue |
|
|
7.0 |
|
|
|
12.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
260.5 |
|
|
|
149.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses |
|
|
178.6 |
|
|
|
93.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before tax |
|
$ |
81.9 |
|
|
$ |
55.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Companys share of pretax income |
|
$ |
28.3 |
|
|
$ |
23.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increased contribution from Sherman for the first quarter of 2006, compared to the same
period in 2005, was primarily due to increased net revenue from portfolios owned and a complete
quarter of operations of Credit One.
Other Matters
Under the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversights (OFHEO) risk-based capital stress
test for the GSEs, claim payments made by a private mortgage insurer on GSE loans are reduced below
the amount provided by the mortgage insurance policy to reflect the risk that the insurer will fail
to pay. Claim payments from an insurer whose claims-paying ability rating is AAA are subject to a
3.5% reduction over the 10-year period of the stress test, while claim payments from a AA rated
insurer, such as MGIC, are subject to an 8.75% reduction. The effect of the differentiation among
insurers is to require the GSEs to have additional capital for coverage on loans provided by a
private mortgage insurer whose claims-paying rating is less than AAA. As a result, there is an
incentive for the GSEs to use private mortgage insurance provided by a AAA rated insurer.
Financial Condition
The Company had $300 million, 5.375% Senior Notes due in November 2015 and $200 million, 6%
Senior Notes due in March 2007 outstanding at March 31, 2006. At March 31, 2005 the Company had
$300 million, 7.5% Senior Notes due in October 2005 and $200 million, 6% senior Notes due in March
2007. In October 2005 the Company issued, in a public offering, $300 million, 5.375% Senior Notes
due in 2015. Interest on the Notes is payable semiannually in arrears on May 1 and November 1 of
Page 33
each year, beginning on May 1, 2006. The Senior Notes were rated A-1 by Moodys, A by S&P and
A+ by Fitch. The Company utilized the proceeds from the sale of these Senior Notes, together with
available cash, to repay the $300 million, 7.5% Senior Notes that came due October 17, 2005. At
March 31, 2006 and 2005, the market value of the outstanding debt was $588.4 million and $667.3
million, respectively.
See Results of OperationsJoint ventures above for information about the financial condition
of C-BASS and Sherman.
As of March 31, 2006, 82% of the investment portfolio was invested in tax-preferenced
securities. In addition, at March 31, 2006, based on book value, approximately 99% of the Companys
fixed income securities were invested in A rated and above, readily marketable securities,
concentrated in maturities of less than 15 years.
At March 31, 2006, the Companys derivative financial instruments in its investment portfolio
were immaterial. The Company places its investments in instruments that meet high credit quality
standards, as specified in the Companys investment policy guidelines; the policy also limits the
amount of credit exposure to any one issue, issuer and type of instrument. At March 31, 2006, the
effective duration of the Companys fixed income investment portfolio was 4.9 years. This means
that for an instantaneous
parallel shift in the yield curve of 100 basis points there would be an approximate 4.9% change in
the market value of the Companys fixed income portfolio.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
The Companys consolidated sources of funds consist primarily of premiums written and
investment income. Positive cash flows are invested pending future payments of claims and other
expenses. Management believes that future cash inflows from premiums will be sufficient to meet
future claim payments. Cash flow shortfalls, if any, could be funded through sales of short-term
investments and other investment portfolio securities subject to insurance regulatory requirements
regarding the payment of dividends to the extent funds were required by other than the seller.
Substantially all of the investment portfolio securities are held by the Companys insurance
subsidiaries.
The Company has a $300 million commercial paper program, which is rated A-1 by S&P and P-1
by Moodys. At March 31, 2006 and 2005, the Company had $100.0 and $155.5 million in commercial
paper outstanding with a weighted average interest rate of 4.74% and 2.85%, respectively.
In March of 2005, the Company obtained a $300 million, five year revolving credit facility,
expiring in 2010. The facility replaced the previous $285 million facility that was due to expire
in 2006. Under the terms of the credit facility, the Company must maintain shareholders equity of
at least $2.25 billion and Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC) must maintain a
risk-to-capital ratio of not more than 22:1 and maintain policyholders position (which includes
MGICs statutory surplus and its contingency reserve) of not less than the amount required by
Wisconsin insurance regulation. At March 31, 2006, these requirements were met. The facility will
continue to be used as a liquidity back up facility for the outstanding commercial paper. The
remaining credit available under the facility after reduction for the amount necessary to support
the commercial paper was $200.0 million and $144.5 million at March 31, 2006 and 2005,
respectively.
Page 34
During the first quarter of 2006, an outstanding interest rate swap contract was terminated.
This swap was placed into service to coincide with the committed credit facility, used as a backup
for the commercial paper program. Under the terms of the swap contract, the Company paid a fixed
rate of 5.07% and received a variable interest rate based on LIBOR. The swap had an expiration date
coinciding with the maturity of the credit facility and was designated as a cash flow hedge. At
March 31, 2006 the Company has no interest rate swaps outstanding.
Expense (income) on the interest rate swaps for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005
of approximately ($0.1) million and $0.5 million, respectively, was included in interest expense.
Gains or losses arising from the amendment or termination of interest rate swaps are deferred and
amortized to interest expense over the life of the hedged items.
The commercial paper, back-up credit facility and the Senior Notes are obligations of the Company
and not of its subsidiaries. The Company is a holding company and the payment of dividends from its
insurance subsidiaries is restricted by insurance regulation. MGIC is the principal source of
dividend-paying capacity. At the end of February 2006, MGIC paid a quarterly dividend of $55
million, as well as an extraordinary dividend of $150 million. In May 2006, MGIC received
regulatory approval to pay a quarterly dividend of $55 million and another extraordinary dividend
of $100 million. As a result of these dividends, MGIC cannot currently pay any dividends without
further regulatory approval.
During the first three months of 2006, the Company repurchased 1.4 million shares of Common
Stock under publicly announced programs at a cost of $91.5 million. At March 31, 2006, the Company
had authority covering the purchase of an additional 9.4 million shares under these programs. For
additional information regarding stock repurchases, see Item 2(c) of Part II of this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q. From mid-1997 through March 31, 2006, the Company has repurchased 36.9 million
shares under publicly announced programs at a cost of $2.1 billion. Funds for the shares
repurchased by the Company since mid-1997 have been provided through a combination of debt,
including the Senior Notes and the commercial paper, and internally generated funds.
The Companys principal exposure to loss is its obligation to pay claims under MGICs mortgage
guaranty insurance policies. At March 31, 2006, MGICs direct (before any reinsurance) primary and
pool risk in force (which is the unpaid principal balance of insured loans as reflected in the
Companys records multiplied by the coverage percentage, and taking account of any loss limit) was
approximately $51.3 billion. In addition, as part of its contract underwriting activities, the
Company is responsible for the quality of its underwriting decisions in accordance with the terms
of the contract underwriting agreements with customers. Through March 31, 2006, the cost of
remedies provided by the Company to customers for failing to meet the standards of the contracts
has not been material. However, the decreasing trend of home mortgage interest rates over the last
several years may have mitigated the effect of some of these costs since the general effect of
lower interest rates can be to
Page 35
increase the value of certain loans on which remedies are provided.
There can be no assurance that contract underwriting remedies will not be material in the future.
The Companys consolidated risk-to-capital ratio was 7.3:1 at March 31, 2006 compared to 7.4:1
at December 31, 2005. The decrease was due to an increase in capital and a decrease in risk in
force during the first three months of 2006.
The risk-to-capital ratios set forth above have been computed on a statutory basis. However,
the methodology used by the rating agencies to assign claims-paying ability ratings permits less
leverage than under statutory requirements. As a result, the amount of capital required under
statutory regulations may be lower than the capital required for rating agency purposes. In
addition to capital adequacy, the rating agencies consider other factors in determining a mortgage
insurers claims-paying rating, including its historical and projected operating performance,
business outlook, competitive position, management and corporate strategy.
Page 36
Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors
General: The Companys revenues and losses could be affected by the risk factors referred to
under Location of Risk Factors below that are applicable to the Company, and the Companys income
from joint ventures could be affected by the risk factors referred to under Location of Risk
Factors that are applicable to C-BASS and Sherman. These risk factors are an integral part of
Managements Discussion and Analysis.
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 even though these statements may be affected by events or
circumstances occurring after the forward looking statements were made.
Location of Risk Factors: The risk factors are in Part II, Item 1 A of this Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q and in Item 1 A of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005. The risk factors in the 10-K are reproduced in Exhibit 99 to this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q.
ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
At March 31, 2006, the Companys derivative financial instruments in its investment portfolio
were immaterial. The Company places its investments in instruments that meet investment grade
credit quality standards, as specified in the Companys investment policy guidelines; the policy
also limits the amount of credit exposure to any one issue, issuer and type of instrument. At
March 31, 2006, the effective duration of the Companys fixed income investment portfolio was 4.9
years. This means that for each instantaneous parallel shift in the yield curve of 100 basis
points there would be an approximate 4.9% change in the market value of the Companys fixed income
investment portfolio.
The Companys borrowings under its commercial paper program are subject to interest rates that
are variable. See the fourth and fifth paragraphs under Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Liquidity and Capital Resources for a discussion of
the Companys interest rate swaps.
ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
The Companys management, with the participation of the Companys principal executive officer
and principal financial officer, has evaluated the Companys disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended), as of the end of
the period covered by this Quarterly
Report on
Page 37
Report on Form 10-Q. Based on such evaluation, the Companys principal executive officer and
principal financial officer concluded that such controls and procedures were effective as of the
end of such period. There was no change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting
that occurred during the first quarter of 2006 that materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting.
Page 38
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1 A. Risk Factors
With the possible exception of the changes set forth below, there have been no material
changes in the Companys risk factors from the risk factors disclosed in the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. The changes to the risk factors that are
set forth below were also included in Exhibit 99 to the Companys Current Report on Form 8-K dated
April 13, 2006. Exhibit 99 set forth the Companys risk factors as part of the Companys press
release announcing its earnings for the first quarter of 2006. Some of the information in the risk
factors in the 10-K has been updated by information in the same risk factor included in that
Exhibit 99.
The mortgage insurance industry is subject to the risk of private litigation and regulatory
proceedings.
Consumers are bringing a growing number of lawsuits against home mortgage lenders and
settlement service providers. In recent years, seven mortgage insurers, including MGIC, have been
involved in litigation alleging violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly known as FCRA. MGICs settlement of class action litigation
against it under RESPA became final in October 2003. MGIC settled the named plaintiffs claims in
litigation against it under FCRA in late December 2004 following denial of class certification in
June 2004. There can be no assurance that MGIC will not be subject to future litigation under RESPA
or FCRA or that the outcome of any such litigation would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company. In August 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided a case
under FCRA to which the Company was not a party that may make it more likely that the Company will
be subject to litigation regarding when notices to borrowers are required by FCRA.
In June 2005, in response to a letter from the New York Insurance Department (NYID), the
Company provided information regarding captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements and other types of
arrangements in which lenders receive compensation. In February 2006, the NYID requested MGIC to
review its premium rates in New York and to file adjusted rates based on recent years experience
or to explain why such experience would not alter rates. In March 2006, MGIC advised the NYID that
it believes its premium rates are reasonable and that, given the nature of mortgage insurance risk,
premium rates should not be determined only by the experience of recent years.In February 2006, in
response to an administrative subpoena from the Minnesota Department of Commerce (the MDC), which
regulates insurance, the Company provided the MDC with information about captive mortgage
reinsurance and certain other matters. Insurance departments or other officials in other states may
also seek information about or investigate captive mortgage reinsurance.
The anti-referral fee provisions of RESPA provide that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as well as the insurance commissioner or attorney
general of any state may bring an action to enjoin violations of these provisions of
Page 39
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 the Company believes its captive
reinsurance arrangements are in conformity with applicable laws and regulations, it is not possible
to predict the outcome of any such reviews or investigations nor is it possible to predict their
effect on the Company or the mortgage insurance industry.
The Company could be adversely affected if personal information on consumers that it
maintains is improperly disclosed.
As part of its business, the Company maintains large amounts of personal information on
consumers. While the Company believes it has 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
aversely affect the Companys reputation and expose it to material claims for damages.
ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALE OF EQUITY SECURITIES & USE OF PROCEEDS
(c) Repurchase of common stock:
Information about shares of Common Stock repurchased during the first quarter of 2006 appears in
the table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) |
|
Maximum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of |
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares |
|
Shares that |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased as |
|
May Yet Be |
|
|
(a) |
|
|
|
|
|
Part of Publicly |
|
Purchased |
|
|
Total Number of |
|
(b) |
|
Announced |
|
Under the Plans |
|
|
Shares |
|
Average Price |
|
Plans or |
|
or Programs |
Period |
|
Purchased |
|
Paid per Share |
|
Programs |
|
(A) |
January 1, 2006
through
January 31, 2006 |
|
|
800,000 |
|
|
$ |
68.48 |
|
|
|
800,000 |
|
|
|
10,015,241 |
|
February 1, 2006
through
February 28, 2006 |
|
|
395,500 |
(B) |
|
$ |
63.24 |
|
|
|
351,500 |
|
|
|
9,663,741 |
|
March 1, 2006
through March
31, 2006 |
|
|
224,883 |
(B) |
|
$ |
66.07 |
|
|
|
221,400 |
|
|
|
9,442,341 |
|
Total |
|
|
1,420,383 |
(B) |
|
$ |
66.64 |
|
|
|
1,372,900 |
|
|
|
9,442,341 |
|
|
|
|
(A) |
|
On June 20, 2005 the Company announced that its Board of Directors authorized the
repurchase of up to five million shares of the Companys Common Stock in the open market or
in private transactions. On January 26, 2006 the Company |
Page 40
|
|
|
|
|
announced that its Board
authorized the repurchased of an additional ten million shares in the open market or in
private transactions. |
|
(B) |
|
44,000 of the shares purchased in February 2006 and 3,483 of the shares purchased in
March 2006 were purchased as part of stock option exercises by Company employees. |
ITEM 6. EXHIBITS
The accompanying Index to Exhibits is incorporated by reference in answer to this portion of
this Item, and except as otherwise indicated in the next sentence, the Exhibits listed in such
Index are filed as part of this Form 10-Q. Exhibit 32 is not filed as part of this Form 10-Q but
accompanies this Form 10-Q.
Page 41
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 thereunto duly authorized, on May 10,
2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\s\ J. Michael Lauer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Michael Lauer |
|
|
|
|
Executive Vice President and |
|
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\s\ Joseph J. Komanecki |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joseph J. Komanecki |
|
|
|
|
Senior Vice President, Controller and |
|
|
|
|
Chief Accounting Officer |
|
|
Page 42
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
(Part II, Item 6)
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Description of Exhibit |
11
|
|
Statement Re Computation of Net Income Per Share |
|
|
|
31.1
|
|
Certification of CEO under Section 302 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
|
|
|
31.2
|
|
Certification of CFO under Section 302 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
|
|
|
32
|
|
Certification of CEO and CFO under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (as indicated in Item 6 of Part II, this Exhibit is not being filed) |
|
|
|
99
|
|
Risk Factors included in Item 1 A of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 |
exv11
EXHIBIT 11
MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
Three Months Ended March 31,2006 and 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
(In thousands of dollars) |
|
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average common shares outstanding |
|
|
86,577 |
|
|
|
95,265 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
163,453 |
|
|
$ |
182,013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share |
|
$ |
1.89 |
|
|
$ |
1.91 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted weighted average shares outstanding: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average common shares outstanding |
|
|
86,577 |
|
|
|
95,265 |
|
Common stock equivalents |
|
|
650 |
|
|
|
519 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted weighted average diluted shares
outstanding |
|
|
87,227 |
|
|
|
95,784 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
163,453 |
|
|
$ |
182,013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share |
|
$ |
1.87 |
|
|
$ |
1.90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
exv31w1
Exhibit 31.1
I, Curt S. Culver, certify that:
1. |
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MGIC Investment Corporation; |
|
2. |
|
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this quarterly report; |
|
3. |
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this quarterly report; |
|
4. |
|
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have: |
|
a) |
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared; |
|
|
b) |
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles; |
|
|
c) |
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and |
|
|
d) |
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and |
5. |
|
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants |
|
|
auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): |
|
a) |
|
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and |
|
|
b) |
|
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. |
Date: May 10, 2006
|
|
|
\s\ Curt S. Culver
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curt S. Culver |
|
|
Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
exv31w2
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATIONS
I, J. Michael Lauer, certify that:
1. |
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MGIC Investment Corporation; |
|
2. |
|
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this quarterly report; |
|
3. |
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this quarterly report; |
|
4. |
|
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have: |
|
(a) |
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared; |
|
|
(b) |
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles; |
|
|
(c) |
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and |
|
|
(d) |
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and |
5. |
|
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): |
|
(a) |
|
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and |
|
|
(b) |
|
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. |
|
|
|
Date: May 10, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
\s\ J. Michael Lauer
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Michael Lauer |
|
|
Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
exv32
Exhibit 32
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS
The undersigned, Curt S. Culver, Chief Executive Officer of MGIC Investment Corporation (the
Company), and J. Michael Lauer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S. C. Section 1350, that to our knowledge:
(1) |
|
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and |
(2) |
|
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|
|
|
Date: May 10, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
\s\ Curt S. Culver
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curt S. Culver |
|
|
Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
\s\ J. Michael Lauer |
|
|
|
|
|
J. Michael Lauer |
|
|
Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
exv99
Exhibit 99
Risk Factors included in Item 1 A of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005
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 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, |
|
|
|
|
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 piggyback loans are a
significant percentage of mortgage originations in which borrowers make down payments of less than
20% and that their use is primarily by borrowers with higher credit scores. During the fourth
quarter of 2004, the Company introduced on a national basis a program designed to recapture
business lost to these mortgage insurance avoidance products. This program accounted for 5.7% of
flow new insurance written in the fourth quarter of 2005 and 6.5% of flow new insurance written for
all of 2005.
Deterioration in the domestic economy or changes in the mix of business may result in more
homeowners defaulting and the Companys losses increasing.
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.
Approximately 8.5% of the Companys primary risk in force is located in areas within Alabama
(0.3%), Florida (4.5%), Louisiana (1.0%), Mississippi (0.6%) and Texas (2.2%) that have been
declared eligible for individual and public assistance by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
as a result of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. The effect on the Company from these hurricanes, however, will not be limited to these
areas to the extent that the borrowers in areas that have not experienced wind or water damage are
adversely affected due to deteriorating economic conditions attributable to these hurricanes.
The mix of business the Company writes also affects the likelihood of losses occurring. In
recent years, the percentage of the Companys volume written on a flow basis that includes segments
the Company views as having a higher probability of claim has continued to increase. These segments
include loans with loan-to-value (LTV) ratios over 95% (including loans with 100% LTV ratios),
FICO credit scores below 620, limited underwriting, including limited borrower documentation, or
total debt-to-income ratios of 38% or higher, as well as loans having combinations of higher risk
factors.
Approximately 9% of the Companys primary risk in force written through the flow channel, and
72% of the Companys primary risk in force written through the bulk channel, consists of adjustable
rate mortgages (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. In addition, the Company believes
the volume of interest-only loans (which may also be ARMs) and other loans with negative
amortization features, such as pay option ARMs, increased in 2004 and 2005. Because interest-only
loans and pay option ARMs are a relatively recent development, the Company has no data on their
historical performance. The Company believes claim rates on certain of these loans will be
substantially higher than on comparable loans that do not have negative amortization.
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. As discussed under The
mortgage insurance industry is subject to risk from private litigation and regulatory proceedings
below, the Company provided information to the New York Insurance Department and the Minnesota
Department of Commerce about captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements. It has been publicly
reported that certain other insurance departments may review or investigate such arrangements.
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.
The Companys private mortgage insurance competitors include:
|
|
PMI Mortgage Insurance Company, |
|
|
|
Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corporation, |
|
|
United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company, |
|
|
|
Radian Guaranty Inc., |
|
|
|
Republic Mortgage Insurance Company, |
|
|
|
Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation, and |
|
|
|
CMG Mortgage Insurance Company. |
If interest rates decline, house prices appreciate or mortgage insurance cancellation
requirements change, the length of time that the Companys policies remain in force could decline
and result in declines in the Companys 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 December 31, 2005 persistency was at 61.3%,
compared to 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.
Changes in the business practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could reduce the Companys
revenues or increase its losses.
The business practices of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), each of which is a government sponsored
entity (GSE), 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 the risk of private litigation and
regulatory proceedings.
Consumers are bringing a growing number of lawsuits against home mortgage lenders and
settlement service providers. In recent years, seven mortgage insurers, including MGIC, have been
involved in litigation alleging violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly known as FCRA. MGICs settlement of class action litigation
against it under RESPA became final in October 2003. MGIC settled the named plaintiffs claims in
litigation against it under FCRA in late December 2004 following denial of class certification in
June 2004. There can be no assurance that MGIC will not be subject to future litigation under RESPA
or FCRA or that the outcome of any such litigation would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company. In August 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided a case
under FCRA to which the Company was not a party that may make it more likely that the Company will
be subject to future litigation regarding when notices to borrowers are required by FCRA.
In June 2005, in response to a letter from the New York Insurance Department (NYID), the
Company provided information regarding captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements and other types of
arrangements in which lenders receive compensation. In February 2006, in response to an
administrative subpoena from the Minnesota Department of Commerce (the MDC), which regulates
insurance, the Company provided the MDC with information about captive mortgage reinsurance and
certain other matters. In the spring of 2005, spokesmen for insurance commissioners in Colorado and
North Carolina were publicly reported as saying that those commissioners are considering
investigating or reviewing captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements. Insurance departments or
other officials in other states may also conduct such investigations or reviews.
The anti-referral fee provisions of RESPA provide that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as well as the insurance commissioner or attorney general of any state may
bring an action to enjoin violations of these provisions 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 the Company believes its captive reinsurance arrangements are in
conformity with
applicable laws and regulations, it is not possible to predict the outcome of any
such reviews or investigations nor is it possible to predict their effect on the Company or the
mortgage insurance industry.
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 withdrawn in 2004.
HUD regulations under RESPA prohibit paying lenders for the referral of settlement services,
including mortgage insurance, and prohibit lenders from receiving such payments. In July 2002, HUD
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 were 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 RESPA
to apply and if such state regulations were not applied to prohibit such payments.
The Companys income from joint ventures could be adversely affected by credit losses,
insufficient liquidity or competition affecting those businesses.
C-BASS: Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC (C-BASS) is particularly exposed
to credit risk and funding risk. In addition, C-BASSs results are sensitive to its ability to
purchase mortgage loans and securities on terms that it projects will meet its return targets. With
respect to credit risk, a higher proportion of non-conforming mortgage originations (the types of
mortgages C-BASS principally purchases) in 2005 compared to 2004 were products, such as interest
only loans to subprime borrowers, that are viewed by C-BASS as having greater credit risk. In
addition, credit losses are a function of housing prices, which in certain regions have experienced
rates of increase greater than historical norms and greater than growth in median incomes.
With respect to liquidity, the substantial majority of C-BASSs on-balance sheet financing for
its mortgage and securities portfolio is short-term and dependent on the value of the collateral
that secures this debt. While C-BASSs policies governing the management of capital at risk are
intended to provide sufficient liquidity to cover an instantaneous and substantial decline in
value, such policies cannot guaranty that all liquidity required will in fact be available.
Although there has been growth in the volume of non-conforming mortgage originations in recent
years, volume is expected to decline in 2006. There is an increasing amount of competition to
purchase non-conforming mortgages, including from real estate investment trusts and from firms that
in the past acted as mortgage securities intermediaries but which are now establishing their own
captive origination
capacity. Decreasing credit spreads also heighten competition in the purchase
of non-conforming mortgages and other securities.
Sherman: The results of Sherman Financial Group LLC (Sherman) are sensitive to its ability
to purchase receivable portfolios on terms that it projects will meet its return targets. While the
volume of charged-off consumer receivables and the portion of these receivables that have been sold
to third parties such as Sherman has grown in recent years, there is an increasing amount of
competition to purchase such portfolios, including from new entrants to the industry, which has
resulted in increases in the prices at which portfolios can be purchased.