Gosic
Related Articles
The following analysis should be read in conjunction with our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included in this report and our audited financial statements, notes thereto and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" included in our 2021 10-K, for a more complete understanding of our financial position and results of operations. In addition, investors should review the "Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements" above and the "Risk Factors" detailed in Part II, Item 1A of this report and in Part I, Item 1A of our 2021 10-K, as subsequently updated in other reports we file with theSEC , for a discussion of those risks and uncertainties that have the potential to affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or prospects in a material and adverse manner. Our results of operations for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for a full fiscal year or for any other period.
Insight
We provide private MI through our primary insurance subsidiary, NMIC. NMIC is a wholly-owned, domiciled inWisconsin and principally regulated by theWisconsin OCI. NMIC is approved as an MI provider by the GSEs and is licensed to write coverage in all 50 states and D.C. Our subsidiary, NMIS, provides outsourced loan review services to mortgage loan originators and our subsidiary, Re One, historically provided reinsurance coverage to NMIC in accordance with certain statutory risk retention requirements. Such requirements have been repealed and the reinsurance coverage provided by Re One to NMIC has been commuted. Re One remains a wholly-owned, licensed insurance subsidiary; however, it does not currently have active insurance exposures. MI protects lenders and investors from default-related losses on a portion of the unpaid principal balance of a covered mortgage. MI plays a critical role in theU.S. housing market by mitigating mortgage credit risk and facilitating the secondary market sale of high-loan-to-value (LTV) (i.e., above 80%) residential loans to the GSEs,who are otherwise restricted by their charters from purchasing or guaranteeing high-LTV mortgages that are not covered by certain credit protections. Such credit protection and secondary market sales allow lenders to increase their capacity for mortgage commitments and expand financing access to existing and prospective homeowners. NMIH, aDelaware corporation, was incorporated inMay 2011 , and we began start-up operations in 2012 and wrote our first MI policy in 2013. Since formation, we have sought to establish customer relationships with a broad group of mortgage lenders and build a diversified, high-quality insured portfolio. As ofJune 30, 2022 , we had issued master policies with 1,812 customers, including national and regional mortgage banks, money center banks, credit unions, community banks, builder-owned mortgage lenders, internet-sourced lenders and other non-bank lenders. As ofJune 30, 2022 , we had$168.6 billion of primary insurance-in-force (IIF) and$43.3 billion of primary risk-in-force (RIF). We believe that our success in acquiring a large and diverse group of lender customers and growing a portfolio of high-quality IIF traces to our founding principles, whereby we aim to help qualified individuals achieve their homeownership goals, ensure that we remain a strong and credible counter-party, deliver a high-quality customer service experience, establish a differentiated risk management approach that emphasizes the individual underwriting review or validation of the vast majority of the loans we insure, utilizing our proprietary Rate GPS® pricing platform to dynamically evaluate risk and price our policies, and foster a culture of collaboration and excellence that helps us attract and retain experienced industry leaders. Our strategy is to continue to build on our position in the private MI market, expand our customer base and grow our insured portfolio of high-quality residential loans by focusing on long-term customer relationships, disciplined and proactive risk selection and pricing, fair and transparent claim payment practices, responsive customer service, and financial strength and 29 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
profitability.
Our common stock trades on the Nasdaq under the symbol "NMIH." Our headquarters is located inEmeryville, California . As ofJune 30, 2022 , we had 246 employees. Our corporate website is located at www.nationalmi.com. Our website and the information contained on or accessible through our website are not incorporated by reference into this report. We discuss below our results of operations for the periods presented, as well as the conditions and trends that have impacted or are expected to impact our business, including new insurance writings, the composition of our insurance portfolio and other factors that we expect to impact our results.
Conditions and trends affecting our business
COVID-19 and other developments
OnJanuary 30, 2020 , theWorld Health Organization (WHO ) declared the outbreak of COVID-19 a global health emergency and subsequently characterized the outbreak as a global pandemic onMarch 11, 2020 . In an effort to stem contagion and control the spread of the virus, the population at large severely curtailed day-to-day activity and local, state and federal regulators imposed a broad set of restrictions on personal and business conduct nationwide. The COVID-19 pandemic, along with the widespread public and regulatory response, caused a dramatic slowdown inU.S. and global economic activity. The global dislocation caused by COVID-19 was unprecedented and the pandemic had a direct impact on theU.S. housing market, private mortgage insurance industry, and our business and operating performance for an extended period. More recently, however, the acute economic impact of COVID-19 has begun to recede. While the pandemic continues to pose a global risk and affect communities across theU.S. , it is no longer the single dominant driver of our performance that it had been in earlier periods. COVID-19 is now one of several mosaic factors, including a range of macroeconomic forces and public policy initiatives that are influencing our market and business. Although we are optimistic that the nationwide COVID-19 vaccination effort and other medical advances will continue to support a normalization of personal and business activity, the path of the virus remains unknown and subject to risk. Given this uncertainty, we are not able to fully assess or estimate the impact the pandemic may have on the mortgage insurance market, our business performance or our financial position at this time, and it remains possible COVID-19 could again trigger more severe and adverse outcomes in future periods. It is also possible that emerging macroeconomic factors, including persistent inflation, flagging consumer confidence and increasing jobless claims could have a pronounced impact on the housing market, the mortgage insurance industry and our business in future periods.
Key Factors Affecting Our Results
New Insurance Purchased (NIW), Insurance in Force and Risk in Force
NIW is the aggregate unpaid principal balance of mortgages underpinning new policies written during a given period. Our NIW is affected by the overall size of the mortgage origination market and the volume of high-LTV mortgage originations. Our NIW is also affected by the percentage of such high-LTV originations covered by private versus government MI or other alternative credit enhancement structures and our share of the private MI market. NIW, together with persistency, drives our IIF. IIF is the aggregate unpaid principal balance of the mortgages we insure, as reported to us by servicers at a given date, and represents the sum total of NIW from all prior periods less principal payments on insured mortgages and policy cancellations (including for prepayment, nonpayment of premiums, coverage rescission and claim payments). RIF is related to IIF and represents the aggregate amount of coverage we provide on all outstanding policies at a given date. RIF is calculated as the sum total of the coverage percentage of each individual policy in our portfolio applied to the unpaid principal balance of such insured mortgage. RIF is affected by IIF and the LTV profile of our insured mortgages, with lower LTV loans generally having a lower coverage percentage and higher LTV loans having a higher coverage percentage. Gross RIF represents RIF before consideration of reinsurance. Net RIF is gross RIF net of ceded reinsurance.
Net premiums written and net premiums earned
We set our premium rates on individual policies based on the risk characteristics of the underlying mortgage loans and borrowers, and in accordance with our filed rates and applicable rating rules. OnJune 4, 2018 , we introduced a proprietary risk-based pricing platform, which we refer to as Rate GPS. Rate GPS considers a broad range of individual variables, including property type, type of loan product, borrower credit characteristics, and lender and market factors, and provides us with the ability to set and charge premium rates commensurate with the underlying risk of each loan that we insure. We introduced Rate GPS inJune 2018 to replace our previous rate card pricing system. While most of our new business is priced through Rate GPS, we also 30 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
continue to offer a pricing option to a limited number of lenders
clients
the introduction and use of Rate GPS gives us a more granular view and
analytical approach to risk assessment and pricing, and that this approach
enhances our ability to continue to build high quality mortgage insurance
portfolio and offering attractive risk-adjusted returns.
Premiums are generally fixed for the duration of our coverage of the underlying loans. Net premiums written are equal to gross premiums written minus ceded premiums written under our reinsurance arrangements, less premium refunds and premium write-offs. As a result, net premiums written are generally influenced by: •NIW;
• premium rates and combination of premium payment types, which are either unique,
monthly or annual premiums, as described below;
•cancellation rates of our insurance policies, which are impacted by payments or prepayments on mortgages, refinancings (which are affected by prevailing mortgage interest rates as compared to interest rates on loans underpinning our in force policies), levels of claim payments and home prices; and
•assignment of premiums under third-party reinsurance contracts.
Premiums are paid either by the borrower (BPMI) or the lender (LPMI) in a single payment at origination (single premium), on a monthly installment basis (monthly premium) or on an annual installment basis (annual premium). Our net premiums written will differ from our net premiums earned due to policy payment type. For single premiums, we receive a single premium payment at origination, which is earned over the estimated life of the policy. Substantially all of our single premium policies in force as ofJune 30, 2022 were non-refundable under most cancellation scenarios. If non-refundable single premium policies are canceled, we immediately recognize the remaining unearned premium balances as earned premium revenue. Monthly premiums are recognized in the month billed and when the coverage is effective. Annual premiums are earned on a straight-line basis over the year of coverage. Substantially all of our policies provide for either single or monthly premiums. The percentage of IIF that remains on our books after any twelve-month period is defined as our persistency rate. Because our insurance premiums are earned over the life of a policy, higher persistency rates can have a significant impact on our net premiums earned and profitability. Generally, faster speeds of mortgage prepayment lead to lower persistency. Prepayment speeds and the relative mix of business between single and monthly premium policies also impact our profitability. Our premium rates include certain assumptions regarding repayment or prepayment speeds of the mortgages underlying our policies. Because premiums are paid at origination on single premium policies and our single premium policies are generally non-refundable on cancellation, assuming all other factors remain constant, if single premium loans are prepaid earlier than expected, our profitability on these loans is likely to increase and, if loans are repaid slower than expected, our profitability on these loans is likely to decrease. By contrast, if monthly premium loans are repaid earlier than anticipated, we do not earn any more premium with respect to those loans and, unless we replace the repaid monthly premium loan with a new loan at the same premium rate or higher, our revenue is likely to decline.
Effect of reinsurance on our results
We utilize third-party reinsurance to actively manage our risk, ensure compliance with PMIERs, state regulatory and other applicable capital requirements, and support the growth of our business. We currently have both quota share and excess-of-loss reinsurance agreements in place, which impact our results of operations and regulatory capital and PMIERs asset positions. Under a quota share reinsurance agreement, the reinsurer receives a premium in exchange for covering an agreed-upon portion of incurred losses. Such a quota share arrangement reduces premiums written and earned and also reduces RIF, providing capital relief to the ceding insurance company and reducing incurred claims in accordance with the terms of the reinsurance agreement. In addition, reinsurers typically pay ceding commissions as part of quota share transactions, which offset the ceding company's acquisition and underwriting expenses. Certain quota share agreements include profit commissions that are earned based on loss performance and serve to reduce ceded premiums. Under an excess-of-loss agreement, the ceding insurer is typically responsible for losses up to an agreed-upon threshold and the reinsurer then provides coverage in excess of such threshold up to a maximum agreed-upon limit. We expect to continue to evaluate reinsurance opportunities in the normal course of business.
Quota share reinsurance
NMIC is a party to five active quota share reinsurance treaties - the 2016 QSR Transaction, effectiveSeptember 1, 2016 , the 2018 QSR Transaction, effectiveJanuary 1, 2018 , the 2020 QSR Transaction, effectiveApril 1, 2020 , the 2021 QSR Transaction, effectiveJanuary 1, 2021 , and the 2022 QSR Transaction, effectiveOctober 1, 2021 - which we refer to collectively 31 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- as the QSR Transactions. Under each of the QSR Transactions, NMIC cedes a proportional share of its risk on eligible policies written during a discrete period to panels of third-party reinsurance providers. Each of the third-party reinsurance providers has an insurer financial strength rating of A- or better byStandard & Poor's Rating Service (S&P),A.M. Best Company, Inc. (A.M. Best ) or both. Under the terms of the 2016 QSR Transaction, NMIC cedes premiums written related to 25% of the risk on eligible primary policies written for all periods throughDecember 31, 2017 and 100% of the risk under our pool agreement with Fannie Mae, in exchange for reimbursement of ceded claims and claim expenses on covered policies, a 20% ceding commission, and a profit commission of up to 60% that varies directly and inversely with ceded claims. Under the terms of the 2018 QSR Transaction, NMIC cedes premiums earned related to 25% of the risk on eligible policies written in 2018 and 20% of the risk on eligible policies written in 2019, in exchange for reimbursement of ceded claims and claim expenses on covered policies, a 20% ceding commission, and a profit commission of up to 61% that varies directly and inversely with ceded claims. Under the terms of the 2020 QSR Transaction, NMIC cedes premiums earned related to 21% of the risk on eligible policies written fromApril 1, 2020 throughDecember 31, 2020 , in exchange for reimbursement of ceded claims and claim expenses on covered policies, a 20% ceding commission, and a profit commission of up to 50% that varies directly and inversely with ceded claims. Under the terms of the 2021 QSR Transaction, NMIC cedes premiums earned related to 22.5% of the risk on eligible policies written in 2021 (subject to an aggregate risk written limit which was exhausted onOctober 30, 2021 ), in exchange for reimbursement of ceded claims and claim expenses on covered policies, a 20% ceding commission, and a profit commission of up to 57.5% that varies directly and inversely with ceded claims. Under the terms of the 2022 QSR Transaction, NMIC cedes premiums earned related to 20% of the risk on eligible policies written betweenOctober 30, 2021 andDecember 31, 2022 , in exchange for reimbursement of ceded claims and claims expenses on covered policies, a 20% ceding commission, and a profit commission of up to 62% that varies directly and inversely with ceded claims. In connection with the 2022 QSR Transaction, NMIC entered into an additional back-to-back quota share agreement that is scheduled to incept onJanuary 1, 2023 (the 2023 QSR Transaction). Under the terms of the 2023 QSR Transactions, NMIC will cede premiums earned related to 20% of the risk on eligible policies written in 2023, in exchange for reimbursement of ceded claims and claim expenses on covered policies, a 20% ceding commission, and a profit commission of up to 62% that varies directly and inversely with ceded claims. NMIC may elect to terminate its engagement with individual reinsurers on a run-off basis (i.e., reinsurers continue providing coverage on all risk ceded prior to the termination date, with no new cessions going forward) or cut-off basis (i.e., the reinsurance arrangement is completely terminated with NMIC recapturing all previously ceded risk) under certain circumstances. Such selective termination rights arise when, among other reasons, a reinsurer experiences a deterioration in its capital position below a prescribed threshold and/or a reinsurer breaches (and fails to cure) its collateral posting obligations under the relevant agreement. EffectiveApril 1, 2019 , NMIC elected to terminate its engagement with one reinsurer under the 2016 QSR Transaction on a cut-off basis. In connection with the termination, NMIC recaptured approximately$500 million of previously ceded primary RIF and stopped ceding new premiums written with respect to the recaptured risk. With this termination, ceded premiums written under the 2016 QSR Transaction decreased from 25% to 20.5% on eligible policies. The termination had no effect on the cession of pool risk under the 2016 QSR Transaction.
Excess of loss reinsurance
Excess of loss reinsurance transactions of insurance-linked notes
NMIC is party to reinsurance agreements with the Oaktown Re Vehicles that provide it with aggregate excess-of-loss reinsurance coverage on defined portfolios of mortgage insurance policies. Under each agreement, NMIC retains a first layer of aggregate loss exposure on covered policies and the respective Oaktown Re Vehicle then provides second layer loss protection up to a defined reinsurance coverage amount. NMIC then retains losses in excess of the respective reinsurance coverage amounts. The respective reinsurance coverage amounts provided by the Oaktown Re Vehicles decrease over a ten-year period as the underlying insured mortgages are amortized or repaid, and/or the mortgage insurance coverage is canceled (except the coverage provided byOaktown Re VI Ltd. andOaktown Re VII Ltd. , which decreases over a 12.5-year period). As the 32 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- reinsurance coverage decreases, a prescribed amount of collateral held in trust by the Oaktown Re Vehicles is distributed to ILN Transaction note-holders as amortization of the outstanding insurance-linked note principal balances. The outstanding reinsurance coverage amounts stop amortizing, and the collateral distribution to ILN Transaction note-holders and amortization of insurance-linked note principal is suspended if certain credit enhancement or delinquency thresholds, as defined in each agreement, are triggered (each, a Lock-Out Event). As ofJune 30, 2022 , the 2018 and 2019 ILN Transactions were deemed to be inLock Out due to the default experience of the underlying reference pools for each respective transaction and the 2021-2 ILN Transaction was deemed to be inLock Out in connection with the initial build of its target credit enhancement level. As such, the amortization of reinsurance coverage, and distribution of collateral assets and amortization of insurance-linked notes was suspended for each ILN Transaction. The amortization of reinsurance coverage, distribution of collateral assets and amortization of insurance-linked notes issued in connection with the 2018, 2019 and 2021-2 ILN Transactions will remain suspended for the duration of the Lock-Out Event for each respective ILN Transaction, and during such period assets will be preserved in the applicable reinsurance trust account to collateralize the excess-of-loss reinsurance coverage provided to NMIC. NMIC holds optional termination rights under each ILN Transaction, including, among others, an optional call feature which provides NMIC the discretion to terminate the transaction on or after a prescribed date, and a clean-up call if the outstanding reinsurance coverage amount amortizes to 10% or less of the reinsurance coverage amount at inception or if NMIC reasonably determines that changes to GSE or rating agency asset requirements would cause a material and adverse effect on the capital treatment afforded to NMIC under a given agreement. In addition, there are certain events that trigger mandatory termination of an agreement, including NMIC's failure to pay premiums or consent to reductions in a trust account to make principal payments to note-holders, among others. EffectiveMarch 25, 2022 andApril 25, 2022 , NMIC exercised its optional clean-up call to terminate the 2017 and 2020-1 ILN Transactions, respectively. In connection with the termination of each respective transaction, NMIC's excess of loss reinsurance agreements withOaktown Re Ltd. andOaktown Re IV Ltd. were commuted and the insurance-linked notes issued byOaktown Re Ltd. andOaktown Re IV Ltd. were redeemed in full with a distribution of remaining collateral assets.
The following table presents the date of creation, the production period covered,
current reinsurance coverage amount, first layer current retained aggregate loss
and details of the overcollateralization level under each current ILN
Transaction. The current amounts are presented in
2018 ILN 2019 ILN 2020-2 ILN 2021-1 ILN 2021-2 ILN
($ values in thousands) Transaction
Transaction Transaction Transaction Transaction
Creation date
July 25, 2018 July
30, 2019
Production covered
1/1/2017 -
5/31/2018
Current ceded RIF$ 962,103 $
1,074,965
Current first layer retained loss 122,327 122,489 121,177 163,665 146,204 Current reinsurance coverage 158,489 231,877 127,409 339,756 363,596 Eligible coverage$ 280,816 $
354 366
Subordinate coverage (4)
29.19 % 32.97 % 6.25 % 6.75 % 6.97 % PMIERs charge on ceded RIF 7.81 % 7.51 % 5.38 % 6.08 % 6.57 % Overcollateralization (5) (6)$ 158,489 $ 231,877 $ 38,806 $ 51,389 $ 28,978 Delinquency Trigger (7) 4.0% 4.0% 4.7 % 5.1 % 5.2 % (1) Approximately 1% of the production covered by the 2020-2 ILN Transaction has coverage reporting dates betweenJuly 1, 2019 andMarch 31, 2020 . (2) Approximately 1% of the production covered by the 2021-1 ILN Transaction has coverage reporting dates betweenJuly 1, 2019 andSeptember 30, 2020 . (3) Approximately 2% of the production covered by the 2021-2 ILN Transaction has coverage reporting dates betweenJuly 1, 2019 andMarch 31, 2021 . (4) Absent a delinquency trigger, the subordinated coverage is capped at 6.25%, 6.75% and 7.45% for the 2020-2, 2021-1 and 2021-2 ILN Transactions, respectively. (5) Overcollateralization for each of the 2018 and 2019 ILN Transactions is equal to their current reinsurance coverage as the PMIERs required asset amount on RIF ceded under each transaction is currently below its remaining first layer retained loss. (6) May not be replicated based on the rounded figures presented in the table. 33 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (7) Delinquency triggers for the 2018 and 2019 ILN Transactions are set at a fixed 4.0% and assessed on a discrete monthly basis; delinquency triggers for the 2020-2, 2021-1 and 2021-2 ILN Transactions are equal to seventy-five percent of the subordinated coverage level and assessed on the basis of a three-month rolling average.
Traditional excess of loss reinsurance operation
EffectiveApril 1, 2022 , NMIC secured$289.7 million of aggregate excess-of-loss reinsurance coverage at inception on a defined portfolio of mortgage insurance policies primarily written betweenOctober 1, 2021 , andMarch 31, 2022 from a broad panel of highly rated reinsurers (the 2022-1 XOL Transaction). Under the agreement, NMIC retains$133.4 million of first layer aggregate loss exposure on covered policies, of which all remained as ofJune 30, 2022 , and the reinsurers then provide second layer loss protection up to a defined reinsurance coverage amount. The reinsurance coverage amount decreases from$289.7 million at inception over a ten-year period as the PMIERs minimum required assets of the underlying covered mortgages declines and was$286.6 million as ofJune 30, 2022 . NMIC retains losses in excess of the outstanding reinsurance coverage amount. NMIC holds optional termination rights under the 2022-1 XOL Transaction, including, among others, an option to terminate the transaction on or afterApril 1, 2027 at its discretion. NMIC may also elect to terminate the transaction at any point if the outstanding reinsurance coverage amount amortizes to 10% or less of the reinsurance coverage amount provided at inception, or if it determines that it will no longer be able to take full PMIERs asset credit for the coverage. Additionally, under the terms of the treaty, NMIC may selectively terminate its engagement with individual reinsurers under certain circumstances. Such selective termination rights arise when, among other reasons, a reinsurer experiences a deterioration in its capital position below a prescribed threshold, and/or a reinsurer breaches (and fails to cure) its collateral posting obligation. Each of the third-party reinsurance providers that is party to the 2022-1 XOL Transaction has an insurer financial strength rating of A- or better by S&P,A.M. Best or both. See Item 1, "Financial Statements - Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements - Note 5, Reinsurance" for further discussion of these third-party reinsurance arrangements. Portfolio Data The following table presents primary and pool NIW and IIF as of the dates and for the periods indicated. Unless otherwise noted, the tables below do not include the effects of our third-party reinsurance arrangements described above. Primary and pool IIF and NIW As of and for the three months ended For the six months ended June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 IIF NIW IIF NIW NIW (In Millions) Monthly$ 148,488 $ 15,695 $ 117,629 $ 19,422 $ 28,789 $ 43,186 Single 20,151 916 18,969 3,329 1,987 5,962 Primary 168,639 16,611 136,598 22,751 30,776 49,148 Pool 1,114 - 1,460 - - - Total$ 169,753 $ 16,611 $ 138,058 $ 22,751 $ 30,776 $ 49,148 NIW for the three and six months endedJune 30, 2022 was$16.6 billion and$30.8 billion compared to$22.8 billion and$49.1 billion for the three and six months endedJune 30, 2021 . NIW decreased year-on-year primarily due to a decline in the size of the total mortgage insurance market. Total IIF increased 23% atJune 30, 2022 compared toJune 30, 2021 , primarily due to the NIW generated between such measurement dates, partially offset by the run-off of in-force policies. Our persistency rate improved to 76.0% atJune 30, 2022 from 53.9% atJune 30, 2021 , reflecting a slowdown in the pace of refinancing activity during the intervening twelve month period driven by an increase in interest and mortgage note rates. 34 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following table shows the net premiums written and earned for the periods
noted:
Primary and pool premiums written
and earned For the three months ended For the six months ended
June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021
(In Thousands)
Net premiums written $ 118,457 $ 126,642 $ 234,491 $ 242,457
Net premiums earned 120,870 110,888 237,365 216,767
For the three and six months ended June 30, 2022 , net premium written decreased
6% and 3%, respectively, while net premiums earned increased 9% and 10%,
respectively, compared to the three and six months ended June 30, 2021 . The
decreases in net premium written were primarily driven by a decrease in single
premium policy production from period to period, partially offset by growth in
our monthly IIF and monthly pay policy premium receipts. The increases in the
net premium earned were primarily due to the growth of our IIF, partially offset
by a decrease in the contribution from single premium policy cancellations and
an increase in total premiums ceded under our reinsurance transactions.
Pool premiums written and earned for the three and six months ended June 30,
2022 and 2021, were $0.3 million and $0.6 million , and $0.4 million and
$0.9 million , respectively, before giving effect to the 2016 QSR Transaction,
under which all of our written and earned pool premiums are ceded. A portion of
our ceded pool premiums written and earned are recouped through profit
commission.
35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wallet statistics
Unless otherwise noted, the portfolio statistics tables presented below do not include the effects of our third-party reinsurance arrangements described above. The table below highlights trends in our primary portfolio as of the dates and for the periods indicated. Primary portfolio trends
From and for the three months ended
December 31, September 30,
June 30, 2022 March 31, 2022 2021 2021 June 30, 2021
($ Values In Millions, except as noted below)
New insurance written $ 16,611 $ 14,165 $ 18,342 $ 18,084 $ 22,751
Percentage of monthly premium 94 % 92 % 93 % 93 % 85 %
Percentage of single premium 6 % 8 % 7 % 7 % 15 %
New risk written $ 4,386 $ 3,721 $ 4,786 $ 4,640 $ 5,650
Insurance-in-force (1) 168,639 158,877 152,343 143,618 136,598
Percentage of monthly premium 88 % 88 % 87 % 87 % 86 %
Percentage of single premium 12 % 12 % 13 % 13 % 14 %
Risk-in-force (1) $ 43,260 $ 40,522 $ 38,661 $ 36,253 $ 34,366
Policies in force (count) (1) 551,543 526,976 512,316 490,714 471,794
Average loan size (value in thousands of dollars) (1) $ $306
301$ 297 $ 293 $ 290 Coverage percentage (2) 25.7 % 25.5 % 25.4 % 25.2 % 25.2 % Loans in default (count) (1) 4,271 5,238 6,227 7,670 8,764 Default rate (1) 0.77 % 0.99 % 1.22 % 1.56 % 1.86 % Risk-in-force on defaulted loans (1) $ 295 $ 362$ 435 $ 546 $ 625 Net premium yield (3) 0.30 % 0.30 % 0.31 % 0.32 % 0.34 % Earnings from cancellations $ 2.2 $ 2.9$ 5.1 $ 7.7 $ 7.0 Annual persistency (4) 76.0 % 71.5 % 63.8 % 58.1 % 53.9 % Quarterly run-off (5) 4.3 % 5.0 % 6.7 % 8.1 % 8.0 % (1) Reported as of the end of the period. (2) Calculated as end of period RIF divided by end of period IIF. (3) Calculated as net premiums earned divided by average primary IIF for the period, annualized. (4) Defined as the percentage of IIF that remains on our books after a given twelve-month period. (5) Defined as the percentage of IIF that is no longer on our books after a given three-month period. The table below presents a summary of the change in total primary IIF for the dates and periods indicated. Primary IIF As of and for the three months ended As of and for the six months ended June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 (In Millions) IIF, beginning of period$ 158,877 $ 123,777 $ 152,343 $ 111,252 NIW 16,611 22,751 30,776 49,148 Cancellations, principal repayments and other reductions (6,849) (9,930) (14,480) (23,802) IIF, end of period$ 168,639 $ 136,598 $ 168,639 $ 136,598 36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We consider a "book" to be a collective pool of policies insured during a
particular period, normally a calendar year. In general, the majority of
underwriting profit, calculated as earned premium revenue minus claims and
underwriting and operating expenses, generated by a particular book year emerges
in the years immediately following origination. This pattern generally occurs
because relatively few of the claims that a book will ultimately experience
typically occur in the first few years following origination, when premium
revenue is highest, while subsequent years are affected by declining premium
revenues, as the number of insured loans decreases (primarily due to loan
prepayments), and by increasing losses.
The table below presents a summary of our primary IIF and RIF by book year as of
the dates indicated.
Primary IIF and RIF As of June 30, 2022 As of June 30, 2021
IIF RIF IIF RIF
(In Millions)
June 30, 2022 $ 30,249 $ 7,972 $ - $ -
2021 76,657 19,522 48,314 11,986
2020 39,154 9,928 51,100 12,792
2019 10,248 2,688 17,279 4,527
2018 4,021 1,030 6,745 1,719
2017 and before 8,310 2,120 13,160 3,342
Total $ 168,639 $ 43,260 $ 136,598 $ 34,366
We utilize certain risk principles that form the basis of how we underwrite and
originate NIW. We have established prudential underwriting standards and
loan-level eligibility matrices which prescribe the maximum LTV, minimum
borrower FICO score, maximum borrower DTI ratio, maximum loan size, property
type, loan type, loan term and occupancy status of loans that we will insure and
memorialized these standards and eligibility matrices in our Underwriting
Guideline Manual that is publicly available on our website. Our underwriting
standards and eligibility criteria are designed to limit the layering of risk in
a single insurance policy. "Layered risk" refers to the accumulation of
borrower, loan and property risk. For example, we have higher credit score and
lower maximum allowed LTV requirements for investor-owned properties, compared
to owner-occupied properties. We monitor the concentrations of various risk
attributes in our insurance portfolio, which may change over time, in part, as a
result of regional conditions or public policy shifts.
37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tables below present our primary NIW by FICO, LTV and purchase/refinance mix
for the periods indicated. We calculate the LTV of a loan as the percentage of
the original loan amount to the original purchase value of the property securing
the loan.
Primary NIW by FICO For the three months ended For the six months ended
June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021
(In Millions)
>= 760 $ 7,990 $ 11,390 $ 14,362 $ 24,304
740-759 2,900 4,246 5,288 9,558
720-739 2,056 3,152 3,993 7,115
700-719 1,650 1,798 3,289 4,156
680-699 1,277 1,292 2,521 2,652
<=679 738 873 1,323 1,363
Total $ 16,611 $ 22,751 $ 30,776 $ 49,148
Weighted average FICO 751 754 750 755
Primary NIW by LTV For the three months ended For the six months ended
June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021
(In Millions)
95.01% and above $ 1,577 $ 2,177 $ 2,943 $ 4,628
90.01% to 95.00% 8,253 9,941 15,308 20,992
85.01% to 90.00% 4,772 6,262 8,640 14,110
85.00% and below 2,009 4,371 3,885 9,418
Total $ 16,611 $ 22,751 $ 30,776 $ 49,148
Weighted average LTV 92.2 % 91.3 % 92.1 % 91.1 %
Primary NIW by purchase/refinance mix For the three months ended For the six months ended
June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021
(In Millions)
Purchase $ 16,203 $ 18,911 $ 29,601 $ 36,820
Refinance 408 3,840 1,175 12,328
Total $ 16,611 $ 22,751 $ 30,776 $ 49,148
38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tables below show our total primary IIF and RIF by FICO and LTV, and
Total Primary FRR by loan type on the dates indicated.
Primary IIF by FICO As of
June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021
($ Values In Millions)
>= 760 $ 83,769 50 % $ 70,583 51 %
740-759 29,195 17 23,175 17
720-739 23,240 14 18,857 14
700-719 16,221 10 12,230 9
680-699 11,160 6 7,927 6
<=679 5,054 3 3,826 3
Total $ 168,639 100 % $ 136,598 100 %
Primary RIF by FICO As of
June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021
($ Values In Millions)
>= 760 $ 21,159 49 % $ 17,531 51 %
740-759 7,564 17 5,873 17
720-739 6,044 14 4,798 14
700-719 4,289 10 3,161 9
680-699 2,936 7 2,047 6
<=679 1,268 3 956 3
Total $ 43,260 100 % $ 34,366 100 %
Primary IIF by LTV As of
June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021
($ Values In Millions)
95.01% and above $ 16,068 10 % $ 12,026 9 %
90.01% to 95.00% 77,804 46 60,358 44
85.01% to 90.00% 51,029 30 43,064 32
85.00% and below 23,738 14 21,150 15
Total $ 168,639 100 % $ 136,598 100 %
Primary RIF by LTV As of
June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021
($ Values In Millions)
95.01% and above $ 4,914 11 % $ 3,552 10 %
90.01% to 95.00% 22,974 53 17,774 52
85.01% to 90.00% 12,553 29 10,555 31
85.00% and below 2,819 7 2,485 7
Total $ 43,260 100 % $ 34,366 100 %
39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary RIF by Loan Type As of
June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021
Fixed 99 % 99 %
Adjustable rate mortgages:
Less than five years - -
Five years and longer 1 1
Total 100 % 100 %
The table below presents selected primary portfolio statistics, by book year, as
of June 30, 2022 .
As of June 30, 2022
Original Remaining % Remaining of Incurred Loss
Insurance Insurance in Original Number of Policies in Number of Loans Ratio (Inception Cumulative Default Current Default
Book Year Written Force Insurance Policies Ever in Force Force in Default # of Claims Paid to Date) (1) Rate (2) Rate (3)
($ Values in Millions)
2013 $ 162 $ 6 3 % 655 40 1 1 0.6 % 0.3 % 2.5 %
2014 3,451 235 7 % 14,786 1,455 29 50 4.0 % 0.5 % 2.0 %
2015 12,422 1,440 12 % 52,548 7,941 170 121 3.0 % 0.6 % 2.1 %
2016 21,187 3,145 15 % 83,626 16,073 343 138 2.7 % 0.6 % 2.1 %
2017 21,582 3,484 16 % 85,897 18,205 607 112 3.9 % 0.8 % 3.3 %
2018 27,295 4,021 15 % 104,043 20,359 785 100 6.6 % 0.9 % 3.9 %
2019 45,141 10,248 23 % 148,423 42,491 812 25 8.5 % 0.6 % 1.9 %
2020 62,702 39,154 62 % 186,174 125,400 696 2 4.6 % 0.4 % 0.6 %
2021 85,574 76,657 90 % 257,972 236,705 811 1 4.3 % 0.3 % 0.3 %
2022 30,776 30,249 98 % 84,034 82,874 17 - 1.0 % - % - %
Total $ 310,292 $ 168,639 1,018,158 551,543 4,271 550
(1) Calculated as total claims incurred (paid and reserved) divided by
cumulative premiums earned, net of reinsurance.
(2) Calculated as the sum of the number of claims paid ever to date and number
of loans in default divided by policies ever in force.
(3) Calculated as the number of loans in default divided by number of policies
in force.
40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geographical dispersion
The following table shows the distribution by state of our primary RIF as of the dates indicated. The distribution of our primary RIF as ofJune 30, 2022 is not necessarily representative of the geographic distribution we expect in the future. Top 10 primary RIF by state As of June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 California 10.8 % 10.3 % Texas 9.0 9.8 Florida 8.3 8.3 Virginia 4.3 5.0 Georgia 4.0 3.5 Illinois 3.9 3.8 Washington 3.9 3.6 Colorado 3.7 4.1 Maryland 3.5 3.9 Pennsylvania 3.3 3.2 Total 54.7 % 55.5 %
Insurance claims and claim costs
Insurance claims and claim expenses incurred represent estimated future payments
on newly defaulted insured loans and any change in our claim estimates for
previously existing defaults. Claims incurred are generally affected by a
variety of factors, including the macroeconomic environment, national and
regional unemployment trends, changes in housing values, borrower risk
characteristics, LTV ratios and other loan level risk attributes, the size and
type of loans insured, the percentage of coverage on insured loans, and the
level of reinsurance coverage maintained against insured exposures.
Reserves for claims and claim expenses are established for mortgage loans that
are in default. A loan is considered to be in default as of the payment date at
which a borrower has missed the preceding two or more consecutive monthly
payments. We establish reserves for loans that have been reported to us in
default by servicers, referred to as case reserves, and additional loans that we
estimate (based on actuarial review and other factors) to be in default that
have not yet been reported to us by servicers, referred to as IBNR. We also
establish reserves for claim expenses, which represent the estimated cost of the
claim administration process, including legal and other fees and other general
expenses of administering the claim settlement process. Reserves are not
established for future claims on insured loans which are not currently reported
or which we estimate are not currently in default.
Reserves are established by estimating the number of loans in default that will
result in a claim payment, which is referred to as claim frequency, and the
amount of the claim payment expected to be paid on each such loan in default,
which is referred to as claim severity. Claim frequency and severity estimates
are established based on historical observed experience regarding certain loan
factors, such as age of the default, cure rates, size of the loan and estimated
change in property value. Reserves are released the month in which a loan in
default is brought current by the borrower, which is referred to as a cure.
Adjustments to reserve estimates are reflected in the period in which the
adjustment is made. Reserves are also ceded to reinsurers under the QSR
Transactions and ILN Transactions, as applicable under each treaty. We have not
yet ceded any reserves under the ILN Transactions as incurred claims and claim
expenses on each respective reference pool remain within our retained coverage
layer of each transaction. Our pool insurance agreement with Fannie Mae contains
a claim deductible through which Fannie Mae absorbs specified losses before we
are obligated to pay any claims. We have not established any claims or claim
expense reserves for pool exposure to date.
The actual claims we incur as our portfolio matures are difficult to predict and
depend on the specific characteristics of our current in-force book (including
the credit score and DTI of the borrower, the LTV ratio of the mortgage and
geographic concentrations, among others), as well as the risk profile of new
business we write in the future. In addition, claims experience will be affected
by macroeconomic factors such as housing prices, interest rates, unemployment
rates and other events, such as natural disasters or global pandemics, and any
federal, state or local governmental response thereto.
41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our reserve setting process considers the beneficial impact of forbearance,
foreclosure moratorium and other assistance programs available to defaulted
borrowers. We generally observe that forbearance programs are an effective tool
to bridge dislocated borrowers from a time of acute stress to a future date when
they can resume timely payment of their mortgage obligations. The effectiveness
of forbearance programs is enhanced by the availability of various repayment and
loan modification options which allow borrowers to amortize or, in certain
instances, outright defer payments otherwise due during the forbearance period
over an extended length of time.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, politicians, regulators, lenders, loan
servicers and others have offered extraordinary assistance to dislocated
borrowers through, among other programs, the forbearance, foreclosure moratorium
and other assistance programs codified under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The FHFA and GSEs have offered further
assistance by introducing new repayment and loan modification options to assist
borrowers with their transition out of forbearance programs and default status.
We generally observe that forbearance, repayment and modification, and other
assistance programs aid affected borrowers and drive higher cure rates on
defaults than would otherwise be expected on similarly situated loans that did
not benefit from broad-based assistance programs.
The following table provides a reconciliation of the beginning and ending gross
reserve balances for primary insurance claims and claim (benefits) expenses:
For the three months ended For the six months ended
June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021
(In Thousands)
Beginning balance $ 102,372 $ 96,103 $ 103,551 $ 90,567
Less reinsurance recoverables (1) (20,080) (18,686) (20,320) (17,608)
Beginning balance, net of reinsurance
recoverables 82,292 77,417 83,231 72,959
Add claims incurred:
Claims and claim (benefits) expenses
incurred:
Current year (2) 8,707 5,069 18,787 15,626
Prior years (3) (11,743) (429) (22,442) (6,024)
Total claims and claim (benefits) expenses
incurred (3,036) 4,640 (3,655) 9,602
Less claims paid:
Claims and claim expenses paid:
Current year (2) 26 - 26 12
Prior years (3) 356 548 676 1,040
Total claims and claim expenses paid 382 548 702 1,052
Reserve at end of period, net of
reinsurance recoverables 78,874 81,509 78,874 81,509
Add reinsurance recoverables (1) 19,588 19,726 19,588 19,726
Ending balance $ 98,462 $ 101,235 $ 98,462 $ 101,235
(1) Related to ceded losses recoverable under the QSR Transactions. See Item 1,
"Financial Statements - Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements -
Note 5, Reinsurance" for additional information.
(2) Related to insured loans with their most recent defaults occurring in the
current year. For example, if a loan defaulted in a prior year and subsequently
cured and later re-defaulted in the current year, the default would be included
in the current year. Amounts are presented net of reinsurance and included
$14.0 million attributed to net case reserves and $4.5 million attributed to net
IBNR reserves for the six months ended June 30, 2022 and $9.8 million attributed
to net case reserves and $5.6 million attributed to net IBNR reserves for the
six months ended June 30, 2021 .
(3) Related to insured loans with defaults occurring in prior years, which have
been continuously in default before the start of the current year. Amounts are
presented net of reinsurance and included $17.0 million attributed to net case
reserves and $4.7 million attributed to net IBNR reserves for the six months
ended June 30, 2022 and $1.1 million attributed to net case reserves and
$5.0 million attributed to net IBNR reserves for the six months ended June 30,
2021 .
42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "claims incurred" section of the table above shows claims and claim
(benefits) expenses incurred on defaults occurring in current and prior years,
including IBNR reserves and is presented net of reinsurance. We may increase or
decrease our claim estimates and reserves as we learn additional information
about individual defaulted loans, and continue to observe and analyze loss
development trends in our portfolio. Gross reserves of $74.9 million related to
prior year defaults remained as of June 30, 2022 .
The following table provides a reconciliation of the beginning and ending count
of loans in default:
For the three months ended For the six months ended
June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021
Beginning default inventory 5,238 11,090 6,227 12,209
Plus: new defaults 1,069 1,095 2,232 2,862
Less: cures (2,011) (3,402) (4,143) (6,270)
Less: claims paid (24) (19) (43) (35)
Less: rescission and claims denied (1) - (2) (2)
Ending default inventory 4,271 8,764 4,271 8,764
Ending default inventory declined from June 30, 2021 to June 30, 2022 as an
increased number of borrowers initially impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic cured
their delinquencies, and fewer new defaults emerged as the acute economic stress
of the pandemic crisis continued to recede. While our default population
declined from June 30, 2021 to June 30, 2022 , our default inventory remains
elevated compared to historical experience due to the continued challenges
certain borrowers are facing related to the COVID-19 pandemic and their decision
to access the forbearance program for federally backed loans codified under the
CARES Act or similar programs made available by private lenders. As of June 30,
2022 , 2,400 of our 4,271 defaulted loans were in a COVID-19 related forbearance
program.
The following table provides details of our claims paid, before giving effect to
claims ceded under the QSR Transactions and ILN Transactions, for the periods
indicated:
For the three months ended For the six months ended
June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021
($ In Thousands)
Number of claims paid (1) 24 19 43 35
Total amount paid for claims $ 471 $ 702 $ 873 $ 1,308
Average amount paid per claim $ 20 $ 37 $ 20 $ 37
Severity (2) 46 % 66 % 43 % 64 %
(1) Count includes 10 and 16 claims settled without payment during the three
and six months ended June 30, 2022 , respectively, and three and four claims
settled without payment during the three and six months ended June 30, 2021 ,
respectively.
(2) Severity represents the total amount of claims paid including claim
expenses divided by the related RIF on the loan at the time the claim is
perfected, and is calculated including claims settled without payment.
We paid 24 and 43 claims during the three and six months ended June 30, 2022 ,
respectively, and 19 and 35 claims during the three and six months ended
June 30, 2021 , respectively. The number of claims paid was modest relative to
the size of our insured portfolio and number of defaulted loans we reported in
each period, primarily due to the forbearance program and foreclosure moratorium
implemented by the GSEs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and codified under
the CARES Act. Such forbearance and foreclosure programs have extended, and may
ultimately interrupt, the timeline over which loans would otherwise progress
through the default cycle to a paid claim. Our claims paid experience for the
three and six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, further benefited from the
resiliency of the housing market and broad national house price appreciation. An
increase in the value of the homes collateralizing the mortgages we insure
provides defaulted borrowers with alternative paths and incentives to cure their
loan prior to the development of a claim.
Our claims severity for the three and six months ended June 30, 2022 was 46% and
43%, respectively, compared to 66% and 64% for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2021 , respectively. Claims severity for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2022 and 2021 benefited from the same resiliency of the housing market
and broad national house price appreciation as
43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
our claims paid. An increase in the value of the homes collateralizing the
mortgages we insure provides additional equity support to our risk exposure and
raises the prospect of a third-party sale of a foreclosed property, which can
mitigate the severity of our settled claims.
The following table provides detail on our average reserve per default, before
giving effect to reserves ceded under the QSR Transactions, as of the dates
indicated:
Average reserve per default: As of June 30, 2022 As of June 30, 2021
(In Thousands)
Case (1) $ 21.3 $ 10.6
IBNR (1)(2) 1.8 1.0
Total $ 23.1 $ 11.6
(1) Defined as the gross provision per insured loan in default.
(2) The amount includes claims settlement costs.
Average reserve per default increased fromJune 30, 2021 toJune 30, 2022 primarily due to the "aging" of early COVID-related defaults. While we have generally established lower reserves for defaults that we consider to be connected to the COVID-19 pandemic given our expectation that forbearance, repayment and modification, and other assistance programs will aid affected borrowers and drive higher cure rates on such defaults than we would otherwise expect to experience on similarly situated loans that did not benefit from broad-based assistance programs, we have increased such reserves over time as individual defaults remain outstanding or "age." Our average reserve per default atJune 30, 2022 also reflects an incrementally conservative set of assumptions about future macroeconomic and housing market conditions compared to those assumed atJune 30, 2021 . While average reserve per default increased fromJune 30, 2021 toJune 30, 2022 , our aggregate gross reserve position declined in the intervening period due to the significant decline in our total default inventory.
GSE supervision
As an approved insurer, NMIC is subject to ongoing compliance with the PMIERs established by each of the GSEs (italicized terms have the same meaning that such terms have in the PMIERs, as described below). The PMIERs establish operational, business, remedial and financial requirements applicable to approved insurers. The PMIERs financial requirements prescribe a risk-based methodology whereby the amount of assets required to be held against each insured loan is determined based on certain loan-level risk characteristics, such as FICO, vintage (year of origination), performing vs. non-performing (i.e., current vs. delinquent), LTV ratio and other risk features. In general, higher quality loans carry lower asset charges. Under the PMIERs, approved insurers must maintain available assets that equal or exceed minimum required assets, which is an amount equal to the greater of (i)$400 million or (ii) a total risk-based required asset amount. The risk-based required asset amount is a function of the risk profile of an approved insurer's RIF, assessed on a loan-by-loan basis and considered against certain risk-based factors derived from tables set out in the PMIERs, which is then adjusted on an aggregate basis for reinsurance transactions approved by the GSEs, such as with respect to our ILN Transactions and QSR Transactions. The aggregate gross risk-based required asset amount for performing, primary insurance is subject to a floor of 5.6% of performing primary adjusted RIF, and the risk-based required asset amount for pool insurance considers both factors in the PMIERs tables and the net remaining stop loss for each pool insurance policy. ByApril 15th of each year, NMIC must certify it met all PMIERs requirements as ofDecember 31st of the prior year. We certified to the GSEs byApril 15, 2022 that NMIC was in full compliance with the PMIERs as ofDecember 31, 2021 . NMIC also has an ongoing obligation to immediately notify the GSEs in writing upon discovery of a failure to meet one or more of the PMIERs requirements. We continuously monitor NMIC's compliance with the PMIERs.
The following table presents a comparison of available assets of SMIERs and
amount of assets required according to the risk as declared by NMIC on the dates indicated:
44 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of
June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021
(In Thousands)
Available assets $ 2,169,388 $ 1,886,993
Risk-based required assets 1,240,143 1,170,854
Available assets were $2.2 billion at June 30, 2022 , compared to $1.9 billion at
June 30, 2021 . The $282 million increase in available assets between the dates
presented was primarily driven by NMIC's positive cash flow from operations
during the intervening period, partially offset by the ordinary course dividend
paid by NMIC to NMIH in April 2022 and the extraordinary dividend paid by Re One
to NMIH following the termination and commutation of the reinsurance agreement
between NMIC and Re One in December 2021 .
The increase in the risk-based required asset amount between the dates presented
was primarily due to the growth of our gross RIF, largely offset by an increase
in the risk ceded under our third-party reinsurance agreements.
Competition
The MI industry is highly competitive and currently consists of six private mortgage insurers, including NMIC, as well as government MIs such as the FHA,USDA orVA . Private MI companies compete based on service, customer relationships, underwriting and other factors, including price, credit risk tolerance and IT capabilities. We expect the private MI market to remain competitive, with pressure for industry participants to maintain or grow their market share. The private MI industry overall competes more broadly with government MIswho significantly increased their share in the MI market following the 2008 Financial Crisis. Although there has been broad policy consensus toward the need for increasing private capital participation and decreasing government exposure to credit risk in theU.S. housing finance system, it remains difficult to predict whether the combined market share of government MIs will recede to pre-2008 levels. A range of factors influence a lender's and borrower's decision to choose private over government MI, including among others, premium rates and other charges, loan eligibility requirements, the cancelability of private coverage, loan size limits and the relative ease of use of private MI products compared to government MI alternatives.
LIBOR Transition
OnMarch 5, 2021 ,ICE Benchmark Administration Limited ("IBA"), the administrator for LIBOR, confirmed it would permanently cease the publication of overnight, one-month, three-month, six-month and twelve-month USD LIBOR settings in their current form afterJune 30, 2023 .The U.K. Financial Conduct Authority , the regulator of IBA, announced on the same day that it intends to stop requiring panel banks to continue to submit to LIBOR and all USD LIBOR settings in their current form will either cease to be provided by any administrator or no longer be representative afterJune 30, 2023 . We have exposure to USD LIBOR-based financial instruments, such as LIBOR-based securities held in our investment portfolio and certain ILN Transactions that require LIBOR-based payments. We are in the process of reviewing our LIBOR-based contracts and transitioning, as necessary and applicable, to a set of alternative reference rates. We will continue to monitor, assess and plan for the phase out of LIBOR; however, we do not expect the impact of such transition to be material to our operations or financial results. 45
————————————————– ——————————
