10-Q 1 form10q.htm MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION 10-Q 9-30-2012 form10q.htm


FORM 10-Q
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 
x
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012
o
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES 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 incorporation or organization)
 
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
   
 
250 E. KILBOURN AVENUE
 
53202
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
 
(Zip Code)
(Address of principal executive offices)
   

(414) 347-6480
(Registrant's 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.
 
YES   x
NO    o
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
 
YES   x
NO    o
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer x
Accelerated filer o
Non-accelerated filer o
Smaller reporting company o
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
 
YES   o
NO    x
 
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.
 
CLASS OF STOCK
PAR VALUE
DATE
NUMBER OF SHARES
Common stock
$1.00
10/31/12
202,031,904
 


 
 

 
 
PART I.  FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1.  Financial Statements

MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011
(Unaudited)

   
September 30,
   
December 31,
 
   
2012
   
2011
 
ASSETS
 
(In thousands)
 
Investment portfolio (notes 7 and 8):
           
Securities, available-for-sale, at fair value:
           
Fixed maturities (amortized cost, 2012 - $4,793,698; 2011 - $5,700,894)
  $ 4,923,846     $ 5,820,900  
Equity securities
    2,918       2,747  
Total investment portfolio
    4,926,764       5,823,647  
                 
Cash and cash equivalents
    730,404       995,799  
Accrued investment income
    42,417       55,666  
Reinsurance recoverable on loss reserves (note 4)
    117,859       154,607  
Reinsurance recoverable on paid losses
    16,726       19,891  
Premium receivable
    68,638       71,073  
Home office and equipment, net
    26,891       28,145  
Deferred insurance policy acquisition costs (note 2)
    10,451       7,505  
Other assets
    68,740       59,897  
Total assets
  $ 6,008,890     $ 7,216,230  
                 
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
               
Liabilities:
               
Loss reserves (note 12)
  $ 4,004,001     $ 4,557,512  
Premium deficiency reserve (note 13)
    84,132       134,817  
Unearned premiums
    140,137       154,866  
Senior notes (note 3)
    99,891       170,515  
Convertible senior notes (note 3)
    345,000       345,000  
Convertible junior debentures (note 3)
    370,164       344,422  
Other liabilities
    297,589       312,283  
Total liabilities
    5,340,914       6,019,415  
                 
Contingencies (note 5)
               
                 
Shareholders' equity (note 14):
               
Common stock (one dollar par value, shares authorized 680,000; shares issued 2012 and 2011 - 205,047; shares outstanding 2012 - 202,032; 2011 - 201,172)
    205,047       205,047  
Paid-in capital
    1,133,107       1,135,821  
Treasury stock (shares at cost 2012 - 3,015; 2011 - 3,875)
    (104,959 )     (162,542 )
Accumulated other comprehensive income, net of tax (note 9)
    38,373       30,124  
Retained deficit
    (603,592 )     (11,635 )
Total shareholders' equity
    667,976       1,196,815  
Total liabilities and shareholders' equity
  $ 6,008,890     $ 7,216,230  
 
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

 
2

 

MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012 and 2011
(Unaudited)

   
Three Months Ended
   
Nine Months Ended
 
   
September 30,
   
September 30,
 
   
2012
   
2011
   
2012
   
2011
 
Revenues:
 
(In thousands of dollars, except per share data)
 
Premiums written:
                       
Direct
  $ 271,360     $ 274,610     $ 782,094     $ 845,798  
Assumed
    597       (6,999 )     1,852       (5,569 )
Ceded
    (8,452 )     (11,866 )     (26,850 )     (39,622 )
Net premiums written
    263,505       255,745       757,096       800,607  
Decrease in unearned premiums, net
    2,927       19,349       14,369       47,487  
Net premiums earned
    266,432       275,094       771,465       848,094  
Investment income, net of expenses
    30,394       48,898       99,980       160,931  
Realized investment gains, net
    6,184       11,405       110,356       38,900  
Total other-than-temporary impairment losses
    -       (253 )     (339 )     (253 )
Portion of losses recognized in other comprehensive income, before taxes
    -       -       -       -  
Net impairment losses recognized in earnings
    -       (253 )     (339 )     (253 )
Other revenue
    3,209       2,025       25,530       9,617  
Total revenues
    306,219       337,169       1,006,992       1,057,289  
                                 
Losses and expenses:
                               
Losses incurred, net (note 12)
    490,121       462,654       1,378,617       1,232,637  
Change in premium deficiency reserve (note 13)
    (9,144 )     (12,388 )     (50,685 )     (32,441 )
Amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs (note 2)
    1,939       1,762       5,544       5,210  
Other underwriting and operating expenses, net
    48,739       50,715       144,387       158,860  
Interest expense
    24,478       25,761       74,017       78,129  
Total losses and expenses
    556,133       528,504       1,551,880       1,442,395  
Loss before tax
    (249,914 )     (191,335 )     (544,888 )     (385,106 )
Benefit from income taxes (note 11)
    (2,972 )     (26,130 )     (4,500 )     (34,508 )
                                 
Net loss
  $ (246,942 )   $ (165,205 )   $ (540,388 )   $ (350,598 )
                                 
Loss per share (note 6):
                               
Basic
  $ (1.22 )   $ (0.82 )   $ (2.68 )   $ (1.74 )
Diluted
  $ (1.22 )   $ (0.82 )   $ (2.68 )   $ (1.74 )
                                 
                                 
Weighted average common shares outstanding - diluted (note 6)
    202,014       201,109       201,851       200,983  
 
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
 
 
3

 

MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012 and 2011
(Unaudited)

   
Three Months Ended
   
Nine Months Ended
 
   
September 30,
   
September 30,
 
   
2012
   
2011
   
2012
   
2011
 
   
(In thousands)
 
                         
Net Loss
  $ (246,942 )   $ (165,205 )   $ (540,388 )   $ (350,598 )
                                 
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax (note 9):
                               
                                 
Unrealized holding gains (losses) for the period included in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
    49,360       49,870       60,130       81,624  
                                 
Less: net gains (losses) reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) into earnings for the period
    4,873       1,433       53,349       8,870  
                                 
Change in unrealized investment gains and losses
    44,487       48,437       6,781       72,754  
                                 
Foreign currency translation adjustment
    1,109       (10,021 )     1,468       (5,497 )
                                 
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax
    45,596       38,416       8,249       67,257  
                                 
Total comprehensive income (loss)
  $ (201,346 )   $ (126,789 )   $ (532,139 )   $ (283,341 )

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
 
 
4

 
 
MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS OF SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
Year Ended December 31, 2011 and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012
(Unaudited)

                     
Accumulated
       
                 
other
   
Retained
 
   
Common
   
Paid-in
   
Treasury
   
comprehensive
   
earnings
 
    stock    
capital
    stock    
income (loss)
   
(deficit)
 
   
(In thousands)
 
                               
Balance, December 31, 2010
  $ 205,047     $ 1,138,942     $ (222,632 )   $ 22,136     $ 525,562  
                                         
Net loss
                                    (485,892 )
Change in unrealized investment gains and losses, net
    -       -       -       21,057       -  
Reissuance of treasury stock, net
    -       (14,577 )     60,090       -       (51,305 )
Equity compensation
    -       11,456       -       -       -  
Defined benefit plan adjustments, net
    -       -       -       (12,862 )     -  
Unrealized foreign currency translation adjustment
    -       -       -       (207 )     -  
                                         
Balance, December 31, 2011
  $ 205,047     $ 1,135,821     $ (162,542 )   $ 30,124     $ (11,635 )
                                         
Net loss
                                    (540,388 )
Change in unrealized investment gains and losses, net (notes 7 and 8)
    -       -       -       6,781       -  
Reissuance of treasury stock, net
    -       (8,749 )     57,583       -       (51,569 )
Equity compensation
    -       6,035       -       -       -  
Unrealized foreign currency translation adjustment
    -       -       -       1,468       -  
                                         
Balance, September 30, 2012
  $ 205,047     $ 1,133,107     $ (104,959 )   $ 38,373     $ (603,592 )

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
 
 
5

 

MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012 and 2011
(Unaudited)
 
   
Nine Months Ended
September 30,
 
   
2012
   
2011
 
   
(In thousands)
 
Cash flows from operating activities:
           
Net loss
  $ (540,388 )   $ (350,598 )
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
               
Depreciation and other amortization
    77,226       60,166  
Deferred tax benefit
    (2,645 )     (36,241 )
Realized investment gains, excluding impairment losses
    (110,356 )     (38,900 )
Net investment impairment losses
    339       253  
Gain on repurchases of senior notes
    (17,775 )     (3,231 )
Other
    (14,449 )     (8,927 )
Change in certain assets and liabilities:
               
Accrued investment income
    13,249       3,201  
Reinsurance recoverable on loss reserves
    36,748       108,416  
Reinsurance recoverable on paid losses
    3,165       18,840  
Premiums receivable
    2,435       5,672  
Deferred insurance policy acquisition costs
    (2,946 )     586  
Loss reserves
    (553,511 )     (1,092,611 )
Premium deficiency reserve
    (50,685 )     (32,441 )
Unearned premiums
    (14,729 )     (48,454 )
Income taxes payable (current)
    1,800       (1,732 )
Net cash used in operating activities
    (1,172,522 )     (1,416,001 )
                 
Cash flows from investing activities:
               
Purchase of fixed maturities
    (3,330,811 )     (2,417,392 )
Purchase of equity securities
    (70 )     (84 )
Proceeds from sale of equity securities
    -       504  
Proceeds from sale of fixed maturities
    3,165,897       2,429,143  
Proceeds from maturity of fixed maturities
    1,138,371       1,091,959  
Net (decrease) increase in payable for securities
    (13,153 )     3,509  
Net cash provided by investing activities
    960,234       1,107,639  
                 
Cash flows from financing activities:
               
Repayment of long-term debt
    (53,107 )     (129,178 )
Net cash used in financing activities
    (53,107 )     (129,178 )
                 
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents
    (265,395 )     (437,540 )
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
    995,799       1,304,154  
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
  $ 730,404     $ 866,614  

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
 
 
6

 
 
MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
September 30, 2012
(Unaudited)

Note 1 - Basis of Presentation

MGIC Investment Corporation is a holding company which, through Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation ("MGIC"), MGIC Indemnity Corporation (“MIC”) and several other subsidiaries, is principally engaged in the mortgage insurance business.  We provide mortgage insurance to lenders throughout the United States and to government sponsored entities (“GSEs”) to protect against loss from defaults on low down payment residential mortgage loans.

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of MGIC Investment Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries have been prepared in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q as prescribed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for interim reporting and do not include all of the other information and disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). These statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto for the year ended December 31, 2011 included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K. As used below, “we,” “our” and “us” refer to MGIC Investment Corporation’s consolidated operations or to MGIC Investment Corporation, as the context requires.

In the opinion of management the accompanying financial statements include all adjustments, consisting primarily of normal recurring accruals, necessary to fairly state our financial position and results of operations for the periods indicated. The results of operations for the interim period may not be indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2012.
 
Capital

The insurance laws of 16 jurisdictions, including Wisconsin, our domiciliary state, require a mortgage insurer to maintain a minimum amount of statutory capital relative to the risk in force (or a similar measure) in order for the mortgage insurer to continue to write new business. We refer to these requirements as the “Capital Requirements.” New insurance written in the jurisdictions that have Capital Requirements represented approximately 50% of new insurance written in 2011 and the first nine months of 2012. While formulations of minimum capital vary among jurisdictions, the most common formulation allows for a maximum risk-to-capital ratio of 25 to 1. A risk-to-capital ratio will increase if the percentage decrease in capital exceeds the percentage decrease in insured risk. Therefore, as capital decreases, the same dollar decrease in capital will cause a greater percentage decrease in capital and a greater increase in the risk-to-capital ratio. Wisconsin does not regulate capital by using a risk-to-capital measure but instead requires a minimum policyholder position (“MPP”). The “policyholder position” of a mortgage insurer is its net worth or surplus, contingency reserve and a portion of the reserves for unearned premiums.

 
7

 
 
At September 30, 2012, MGIC’s preliminary risk-to-capital ratio was 31.5 to 1, exceeding the maximum allowed by many jurisdictions, and its preliminary policyholder position was $344 million below the required MPP of $1.3 billion. We expect MGIC’s risk-to-capital ratio to increase and to continue to exceed 25 to 1. At September 30, 2012, the preliminary risk-to-capital ratio of our combined insurance operations (which includes reinsurance affiliates) was 34.1 to 1. A higher risk-to-capital ratio on a combined basis may indicate that, in order for MGIC or MIC to continue to utilize reinsurance arrangements with its subsidiaries or subsidiaries of our holding company, additional capital contributions to the reinsurance affiliates could be needed. These reinsurance arrangements permit MGIC and MIC to write insurance with a higher coverage percentage than they could on their own under certain state-specific requirements.

Under Statement of Statutory Accounting Principles No. 101 (“SSAP No. 101”), which became effective January 1, 2012, MGIC received no benefit to statutory capital at June 30, 2012 for deferred tax assets because MGIC’s risk-to-capital ratio exceeded 25 to 1 before considering those assets. The exclusion of deferred tax assets at June 30, 2012, negatively impacted our statutory capital. Under a permitted practice effective September 30, 2012 and until further notice, the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Wisconsin (“OCI”) has approved MGIC to report its net deferred tax asset as an admitted asset in an amount not to exceed 10% of surplus as regards policyholders, notwithstanding contrary provisions of SSAP No. 101. At September 30, 2012, pursuant to the permitted practice, deferred tax assets of $90 million were included in statutory capital.

Although MGIC does not meet the Capital Requirements of Wisconsin, the OCI has waived them until December 31, 2013. In place of the Capital Requirements, the OCI Order containing the waiver of Capital Requirements (the “OCI Order”) provides that MGIC can write new business as long as it maintains regulatory capital that the OCI determines is reasonably in excess of a level that would constitute a financially hazardous condition. The OCI Order requires MGIC Investment Corporation, beginning January 1, 2012 and continuing through the earlier of December 31, 2013 and the termination of the OCI Order (the “Covered Period”), to make cash equity contributions to MGIC as may be necessary so that its “Liquid Assets” are at least $1 billion (this portion of the OCI Order is referred to as the “Keepwell Provision”). “Liquid Assets,” which include those of MGIC as well as those held in certain of our subsidiaries, excluding MIC and its reinsurance affiliates, are the sum of (i) the aggregate cash and cash equivalents, (ii) fair market value of investments and (iii) assets held in trusts supporting the obligations of captive mortgage reinsurers to MGIC. As of September 30, 2012, “Liquid Assets” were approximately $5.1 billion. Although we do not expect that MGIC’s Liquid Assets will fall below $1 billion during the Covered Period, we do expect the amount of Liquid Assets to continue to decline materially after September 30, 2012 and through the end of the Covered Period as MGIC’s claim payments and other uses of cash continue to exceed cash generated from operations. For more information about factors that could negatively impact MGIC’s Liquid Assets, see Note 5 – “Litigation and Contingencies” and Note 11 – “Income Taxes.”

MGIC applied for waivers in the other jurisdictions with Capital Requirements and, at this time, has active waivers from eight of them, two of which allow a maximum risk-to-capital ratio that we expect to exceed in the fourth quarter of 2012. Four jurisdictions have either denied our request for waivers, have laws that do not allow for waivers or have granted waivers allowing risk-to-capital ratios that MGIC has exceeded. We are awaiting a response from three other jurisdictions, some of which may deny our request.
 
 
8

 
 
As part of our longstanding plan to write new business in MIC, a direct subsidiary of MGIC, and pursuant to the OCI Order, MGIC has made capital contributions to MIC, with $200 million contributed in January 2012. As of September 30, 2012, MIC had statutory capital of $443 million. In the third quarter of 2012, we began writing new mortgage insurance in MIC on the same policy terms as MGIC, in those jurisdictions where we did not have active waivers of Capital Requirements for MGIC. In the third quarter of 2012, MIC’s new insurance written was $587 million, which includes business from certain jurisdictions for which new insurance is again being written in MGIC after it received the necessary waivers, but excludes business in certain jurisdictions in which we expect MIC to write new insurance in the fourth quarter of 2012, after MGIC exceeds the risk-to-capital ratio limit included in the jurisdictions’ waivers. With the $443 million of statutory capital in MIC, we have the capacity to write 100% of our new insurance written in MIC for at least five years at current quality and volume levels of new insurance written if we obtained GSE approval to do so. We are currently writing new mortgage insurance in MIC in Florida, Idaho, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Puerto Rico and Texas. MIC is licensed to write business in all jurisdictions and, subject to the conditions and restrictions discussed below, has received the necessary approvals from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”) and the OCI to write business in all of the jurisdictions that have not waived their Capital Requirements for MGIC.
 
Under an agreement in place with Fannie Mae, MIC will be eligible to write mortgage insurance through December 31, 2013, only in those jurisdictions (other than Wisconsin) in which MGIC cannot write new insurance due to MGIC’s failure to meet Capital Requirements and to obtain a waiver of them. The agreement with Fannie Mae contains certain conditions and restrictions to its continued effectiveness including the continued effectiveness of the OCI Order and the continued applicability of the Keepwell Provision of the OCI Order.

Under a letter dated January 23, 2012, Freddie Mac approved MIC to write business only in certain jurisdictions where MGIC does not meet the Capital Requirements and does not obtain waivers of them. The January 23, 2012 approval from Freddie Mac, contains certain conditions and restrictions to its continued effectiveness, which remain in effect, including requirements that while MIC is writing new business under the Freddie Mac approval, MIC may not exceed a risk-to-capital ratio of 20:1 (at September 30, 2012, MIC’s preliminary risk-to-capital ratio was 0.3 to 1), MGIC and MIC comply with all terms and conditions of the OCI Order,  the OCI Order remain effective, and that MIC provide MGIC access to the capital of MIC in an amount necessary for MGIC to maintain sufficient liquidity to satisfy its obligations under insurance policies issued by MGIC. As requested by the OCI, we have notified Freddie Mac that the OCI has objected to this last requirement and others contained in the Freddie Mac approval because those requirements do not recognize the OCI’s statutory authority and obligations. In this regard, see the third condition to the September 28, 2012 Freddie Mac letter referred to in the next paragraph.

Under a letter dated August 1, 2012, as amended by a letter dated September 28, 2012 (collectively, the “September Freddie Mac Letter”), Freddie Mac expanded the jurisdictions in which MIC is approved to cover all of the 15 jurisdictions besides Wisconsin that have Capital Requirements when MGIC is not able to write new business in a jurisdiction because MGIC would not meet those Requirements, after considering any waiver that may be granted. The approval in the September Freddie Mac Letter is subject to the following conditions: (1) a $100 million capital contribution to MGIC by our holding company be made on or before December 1, 2012 (the “Contribution Condition”); (2) substantial agreement to a settlement of our dispute with Freddie Mac regarding the interpretation of certain pool policies be reached on or before October 31, 2012 (such condition is the “Settlement Condition”; for more information about this dispute, see Note 5 “Litigation and Contingencies”); and (3) agreement by the OCI by December 31, 2012 that MIC’s capital will be available to MGIC to support MGIC’s policyholder obligations without segregation of those obligations (the “OCI Condition”). The approval in the September Freddie Mac Letter may be withdrawn at any time, ends December 31, 2013 and is also subject to compliance with the conditions and restrictions in Freddie Mac’s January 23, 2012 letter. 
 
The Settlement Condition has been met, and with the exception of drafting issues that we consider minor, MGIC and Freddie Mac have agreed on the terms and text of a definitive settlement agreement, subject to approval by the Boards of Directors of MGIC and Freddie Mac and by the FHFA.  Under the settlement agreement, MGIC is to pay Freddie Mac $267.5 million in satisfaction of any further obligations under the policies in dispute, of which $100 million is to be paid upon effectiveness of the settlement and the remaining $167.5 million is to be paid in 48 equal monthly installments thereafter.

The settlement will become effective if and when the definitive settlement agreement is signed by all parties, including the FHFA.  MGIC does not intend to sign the settlement agreement unless MIC is approved by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, for a period that MGIC and the GSEs need to agree on, to write business in jurisdictions in which MGIC cannot due to failure to meet the Capital Requirements (the “Further MIC Approvals”). If the Further MIC Approvals are obtained, and there is a satisfactory resolution of the OCI Condition (which is completely beyond our control), we are willing to satisfy the Contribution Condition and MGIC is willing to sign the settlement agreement.

While we are hopeful of making further progress regarding the settlement, there are substantial risks the settlement will not be concluded.  We have not made any loss provision for a settlement and are unable to predict if and when a signed and effective settlement will be reached.  Effectiveness of the settlement would negatively impact our statutory capital and materially worsen the current non-compliance with Capital Requirements.  Absent a settlement, such an effect could also occur from changed circumstances that lead us to conclude a loss is probable in litigation.

 
9

 
 
If one GSE does not approve MIC in all jurisdictions that have not waived their Capital Requirements for MGIC, MIC may be able to write insurance on loans that will be sold to the other GSE or retained by private investors. However, because lenders may not know which GSE will purchase their loans until mortgage insurance has been procured, lenders may be unwilling to procure mortgage insurance from MIC. Furthermore, if we are unable to write business on a nationwide basis utilizing a combination of MGIC and MIC, lenders may be unwilling to procure insurance from us anywhere. In addition, new insurance written can be influenced by a lender’s assessment of the financial strength of our insurance operations and the matters in the September Freddie Mac Letter.

Insurance departments, in their sole discretion, may modify, terminate or extend their waivers of Capital Requirements. If an insurance department other than the OCI modifies or terminates its waiver, or if it fails to grant a waiver or renew its waiver after expiration, depending on the circumstances, MGIC could be prevented from writing new business in that particular jurisdiction. Also, depending on the level of losses that MGIC experiences in the future, it is possible that regulatory action by one or more jurisdictions, including those that do not have specific Capital Requirements, may prevent MGIC from continuing to write new insurance in some or all of the jurisdictions in which MIC is not eligible to insure loans purchased or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. If this were to occur, we would need to seek the GSEs’ approval to allow MIC to write business in those jurisdictions.

 
10

 
 
The OCI, in its sole discretion, may modify, terminate or extend its waiver, although any modification or extension of the Keepwell Provision requires our written consent. If the OCI modifies or terminates its waiver, or if it fails to renew its waiver upon expiration, depending on the circumstances, MGIC could be prevented from writing new business in all jurisdictions if MGIC does not comply with the Capital Requirements. If MGIC were prevented from writing new business in all jurisdictions, our insurance operations in MGIC would be in run-off (meaning no new loans would be insured but loans previously insured would continue to be covered, with premiums continuing to be received and losses continuing to be paid on those loans) until MGIC either met the Capital Requirements or obtained a necessary waiver to allow it to once again write new business. Furthermore, if the OCI revokes or fails to renew MGIC’s waiver, MIC’s ability to write new business would be severely limited because the GSEs’ approval of MIC is conditioned upon the continued effectiveness of the OCI Order.

We cannot assure you that the OCI or any other jurisdiction that has granted a waiver of its Capital Requirements will not modify or revoke the waiver, or will renew the waiver when it expires; that the GSEs will approve MIC to write new business in all jurisdictions in which MGIC is unable to do so; or that MGIC could obtain the additional capital necessary to comply with the Capital Requirements. At present the amount of additional capital we would need to comply with the Capital Requirements would be substantial.

For more information about factors that could negatively impact MGIC’s compliance with Capital Requirements, which depending on the severity of adverse outcomes could exacerbate materially the current non-compliance with Capital Requirements, see Note 5 – “Litigation and Contingencies” and Note 11 – “Income Taxes.” As discussed above, we have not accrued an estimated loss in our financial statements to reflect the satisfaction of the Settlement Condition. In addition, as discussed below, in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 450-20, we have not accrued an estimated loss in our financial statements to reflect possible adverse developments in other litigation or other dispute resolution proceedings. An accrual, if required and depending on the amount, could exacerbate materially MGIC’s current non-compliance with Capital Requirements. In addition to the factors listed above, our statutory capital and compliance with Capital Requirements could be negatively affected by an unfunded pension liability. An unfunded pension liability for statutory capital purposes may result from increases in pension benefit obligations due to a lower discount rate assumption or decreases to the fair value of pension plan assets due to poor asset performance, as well as changes in certain other actuarial assumptions.

Since mid-2011, two of our competitors, Republic Mortgage Insurance Company (“RMIC”) and PMI Mortgage Insurance Co. (“PMI”), ceased writing new insurance commitments, were placed under the supervision of the insurance departments of their respective domiciliary states and are subject to partial claim payment plans with the remaining claim amounts deferred. (PMI’s parent company subsequently filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.) In addition, in 2008, Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation ceased writing new business and entered into voluntary run-off.  It is also subject to a partial payment plan ordered by its domiciliary state.

MGIC’s failure to meet the Capital Requirements to insure new business does not necessarily mean that MGIC does not have sufficient resources to pay claims on its insurance liabilities. While we believe that MGIC has sufficient claims paying resources to meet its claim obligations on its insurance in force on a timely basis, even though it does not meet Capital Requirements, we cannot assure you that the events that led to MGIC failing to meet Capital Requirements would not also result in it not having sufficient claims paying resources. Furthermore, our estimates of MGIC’s claims paying resources and claim obligations are based on various assumptions. These assumptions include the timing of the receipt of claims on loans in our delinquency inventory and future claims that we anticipate will ultimately be received, our anticipated rescission activity, future housing values and future unemployment rates. These assumptions are subject to inherent uncertainty and require judgment by management. Current conditions in the domestic economy make the assumptions about when anticipated claims will be received, housing values, and unemployment rates highly volatile in the sense that there is a wide range of reasonably possible outcomes. Our anticipated rescission activity is also subject to inherent uncertainty due to the difficulty of predicting the amount of claims that will be rescinded and the outcome of any legal proceedings or settlement discussions related to rescissions that we make, including those with Countrywide. (For more information about the Countrywide legal proceedings, see Note 5 - “Litigation and Contingencies.”)

 
11

 
 
Prior to 2008, rescissions of coverage on loans for which claims have been submitted to us were not a material portion of our claims resolved during a year. However, beginning in 2008, our rescission of coverage on loans has materially mitigated our paid losses. In each of 2009 and 2010, rescissions mitigated our paid losses by approximately $1.2 billion; in 2011, rescissions mitigated our paid losses by approximately $0.6 billion; and in the first nine months of 2012, rescissions mitigated our paid losses by approximately $0.2 billion (in each case, the figure includes amounts that would have either resulted in a claim payment or been charged to a deductible under a bulk or pool policy, and may have been charged to a captive reinsurer). In recent quarters, 8% to 13% of claims received in a quarter have been resolved by rescissions, down from the peak of approximately 28% in the first half of 2009.

As discussed in Note 5 – “Litigation and Contingencies” we are in mediation in an effort to resolve our dispute with Countrywide. In connection with that mediation, we have voluntarily suspended rescissions of coverage related to loans that we believe could be included in a potential resolution. As of September 30, 2012, coverage on approximately 1,700 loans, representing total potential claim payments of approximately $125 million, that we had determined was rescindable was affected by our decision to suspend such rescissions. Substantially all of these potential rescissions relate to claims received beginning in the first quarter of 2011 or later and, had we not suspended rescissions, most of these rescissions would have been processed in the first nine months of 2012. In addition, as of September 30, 2012, approximately 350 rescissions, representing total potential claim payments of approximately $23 million, were affected by our decision to suspend rescissions for customers other than Countrywide. Although the loans with suspended rescissions are included in our delinquency inventory, for purposes of determining our reserve amounts, it is assumed that coverage on these loans will be rescinded. The decision to suspend these potential rescissions does not represent the only reason for the recent decline in the percentage of claims that have been resolved through rescissions and we continue to expect that our rescissions will continue to decline.

Our loss reserving methodology incorporates the effects we expect rescission activity to have on the losses we expect to pay on our delinquent inventory. Historically, the number of rescissions that we have reversed has been immaterial. A variance between ultimate actual rescission and reversal rates and these estimates, as a result of the outcome of claims investigations, litigation, settlements or other factors, could materially affect our losses. We estimate rescissions mitigated our incurred losses by approximately $2.5 billion in 2009 and $0.2 billion in 2010. In 2011 and the first nine months of 2012, we estimate that rescissions had no significant impact on our losses incurred. All of these figures include the benefit of claims not paid in the period as well as the impact of changes in our estimated expected rescission activity on our loss reserves in the period. At September 30, 2012, we had 148,885 loans in our primary delinquency inventory; a significant portion of these loans will cure their delinquency or be rescinded and will not involve paid claims.

 
12

 
 
If the insured disputes our right to rescind coverage, the outcome of the dispute ultimately would be determined by legal proceedings. Under our policies, legal proceedings disputing our right to rescind coverage may be brought up to three years after the lender has obtained title to the property (typically through a foreclosure) or the property was sold in a sale that we approved, whichever is applicable, although in a few jurisdictions there is a longer time to bring such an action. For the majority of our rescissions since the beginning of 2009 that are not subject to a settlement agreement, this period in which a dispute may be brought has not ended. We consider a rescission resolved for financial reporting purposes even though legal proceedings have been initiated and are ongoing. Although it is reasonably possible that, when the proceedings are completed, there will be a determination that we were not entitled to rescind in all cases, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the potential liability. Under ASC 450-20, an estimated loss from such proceedings is accrued for only if we determine that the loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. Therefore, when establishing our loss reserves, we do not include additional loss reserves that would reflect an adverse outcome from ongoing legal proceedings, including those with Countrywide. For more information about these legal proceedings, see Note 5 – “Litigation and Contingencies.”

In addition to the proceedings involving Countrywide, we are involved in legal proceedings with respect to rescissions that we do not consider to be collectively material in amount. Although it is reasonably possible that, when these discussions or proceedings are completed, there will be a conclusion or determination that we were not entitled to rescind in all cases, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the potential liability.

In 2010, we entered into a settlement agreement with a lender-customer regarding our rescission practices. In April 2011, Freddie Mac advised its servicers that they must obtain its prior approval for rescission settlements and Fannie Mae advised its servicers that they are prohibited from entering into such settlements. In addition, in April 2011, Fannie Mae notified us that we must obtain its prior approval to enter into certain settlements. We continue to discuss with other lender-customers their objections to material rescissions and have reached settlement terms with several of our significant lender-customers. In connection with some of these settlement discussions, we have suspended rescissions related to loans that we believe could be included in potential settlements. As of September 30, 2012, approximately 350 rescissions, representing total potential claim payments of approximately $23 million, were affected by our decision to suspend rescissions for customers other than Countrywide. Any definitive agreement with these customers would be subject to GSE approval under announcements they made last year. Both GSEs approved our proposed settlement agreement with one customer. We considered the terms of the proposed agreement when establishing our loss reserves at September 30, 2012. This agreement did not have a significant impact on our established loss reserves. Neither GSE has approved our other settlement agreements, which were structured in a different manner than the one that was approved by the GSEs, and the terms of these other agreements were not considered when establishing our loss reserves at September 30, 2012. We have also reached settlement agreements that do not require GSE approval, but they have not been material in the aggregate.

Reclassifications

Certain reclassifications have been made in the accompanying financial statements to 2011 amounts to conform to 2012 presentation.

Subsequent events

We have considered subsequent events through the date of this filing.

 
13

 

Note 2 - New Accounting Guidance

In May 2011, new guidance was issued regarding fair value measurement. The guidance in the new standard is intended to harmonize the fair value measurement and disclosure requirements for accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) and International Financial Reporting Standards. Many of the changes in the standard represent clarifications to existing guidance, but the standard also includes some new guidance and new required disclosures. Our disclosures reflect the requirements of this new guidance beginning with the first quarter of 2012.

In June 2011, as amended in December 2011, new guidance was issued requiring entities to present net income and other comprehensive income in either a single continuous statement or in two separate, but consecutive, statements of net income and other comprehensive income. The option to present items of other comprehensive income in the statement of changes in equity is eliminated. Our disclosures reflect the requirements of this new guidance beginning with the first quarter of 2012. Other provisions of this guidance regarding reclassifications out of other comprehensive income have been delayed.

In October 2011, new guidance was issued on accounting for costs associated with acquiring or renewing insurance contracts. The new guidance changed how insurance companies account for acquisition costs, particularly in determining what costs are deferrable. The new requirements were effective beginning in the first quarter of 2012 and we have adopted them prospectively. Under the new guidance in effect, for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012, we deferred $2.6 million and $6.7 million of acquisition costs, respectively. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, we deferred $1.2 million and $3.9 million in acquisition costs, respectively, and under the new guidance we would have deferred $1.8 million and $5.2 million of such costs, respectively. Acquisition costs are not deferred on a statutory accounting basis; therefore this new guidance has no impact on our statutory capital.

Note 3 – Debt

Senior Notes

At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 we had outstanding $100.1 million and $171.0 million, respectively, of 5.375% Senior Notes due in November 2015. During 2012 we repurchased $70.9 in par value of those Senior Notes. We recognized a gain on the repurchases of approximately $17.8 million, which is included in other revenue on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2012. During 2011 we repurchased $129.0 million in par value of these same Senior Notes. We recognized a gain on the repurchases of approximately $27.7 million, which is included in other revenue on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2011. Covenants in the Senior Notes include the requirement that there be no liens on the stock of the designated subsidiaries unless the Senior Notes are equally and ratably secured; that there be no disposition of the stock of designated subsidiaries unless all of the stock is disposed of for consideration equal to the fair market value of the stock; and that we and the designated subsidiaries preserve our corporate existence, rights and franchises unless we or any such subsidiary determines that such preservation is no longer necessary in the conduct of its business and that the loss thereof is not disadvantageous to the Senior Notes. A designated subsidiary is any of our consolidated subsidiaries which has shareholders’ equity of at least 15% of our consolidated shareholders’ equity. We were in compliance with all covenants at September 30, 2012.

 
14

 
 
If we fail to meet any of the covenants of the Senior Notes; there is a failure to pay when due at maturity, or a default results in the acceleration of maturity of, any of our other debt in an aggregate amount of $40 million or more; or we fail to make a payment of principal on the Senior Notes when due or a payment of interest on the Senior Notes within thirty days after due and we are not successful in obtaining an agreement from holders of a majority of the Senior Notes to change (or waive) the applicable requirement or payment default, then the holders of 25% or more of our Senior Notes would have the right to accelerate the maturity of those notes.  In addition, the trustee of the Senior Notes could, independent of any action by holders of Senior Notes, accelerate the maturity of the Senior Notes. The amounts we owe under the Senior Notes would also be accelerated upon certain bankruptcy or insolvency-related events involving our holding company, including certain events involving the appointment of a custodian, receiver, liquidator, assignee, trustee or other similar official (collectively, an “Insolvency Official”) of our holding company or any substantial part of its property or the consent of our holding company to such an appointment. The description above is not intended to be complete in all respects. Moreover, the description is qualified in its entirety by the terms of the notes, which are contained in the Indenture, dated as of October 15, 2000, between us and U.S. Bank, National Association, as trustee, and in an Officer's Certificate dated as of October 4, 2005, which specifies the interest rate, maturity date and other terms of the Senior Notes.

Interest payments on the Senior Notes were $4.8 million and $8.1 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. For the nine months ended September 30, 2011 we also had interest payments of $4.4 million related to Senior Notes repaid in 2011.

Convertible Senior Notes

At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 we had outstanding $345 million principal amount of 5% Convertible Senior Notes due in 2017. Interest on the Convertible Senior Notes is payable semi-annually in arrears on May 1 and November 1 of each year. The Convertible Senior Notes will mature on May 1, 2017, unless earlier converted by the holders or repurchased by us. Covenants in the Convertible Senior Notes include a requirement to notify holders in advance of certain events and that we and the designated subsidiaries (defined above) preserve our corporate existence, rights and franchises unless we or any such subsidiary determines that such preservation is no longer necessary in the conduct of its business and that the loss thereof is not disadvantageous to the Convertible Senior Notes.

If we fail to meet any of the covenants of the Convertible Senior Notes; there is a failure to pay when due at maturity, or a default results in the acceleration of maturity of, any of our other debt in an aggregate amount of $40 million or more; a final judgment for the payment of $40 million or more (excluding any amounts covered by insurance) is rendered against us or any of our subsidiaries which judgment is not discharged or stayed within certain time limits; or we fail to make a payment of principal on the Convertible Senior Notes when due or a payment of interest on the Convertible Senior Notes within thirty days after due and we are not successful in obtaining an agreement from holders of a majority of the Convertible Senior Notes to change (or waive) the applicable requirement or payment default, then the holders of 25% or more of the Convertible Senior Notes would have the right to accelerate the maturity of those notes. In addition, the trustee of the Convertible Senior Notes could, independent of any action by holders, accelerate the maturity of the Convertible Senior Notes. The amounts we owe under the Convertible Senior Notes would also be accelerated upon certain bankruptcy or insolvency-related events involving our holding company or a Significant Subsidiary, including the failure to have dismissed or stayed a petition seeking relief under bankruptcy or insolvency laws or the consent of our holding company or a Significant Subsidiary to the appointment of an Insolvency Official for all or substantially all of their respective property. “Significant Subsidiary” is defined in Regulation S-X under the Securities Act of 1933 and is measured as of the most recently completed fiscal year. As of December 31, 2011, MGIC and MGIC Reinsurance Corporation of Wisconsin were our Significant Subsidiaries.

 
15

 
 
The Convertible Senior Notes are convertible, at the holder's option, at an initial conversion rate, which is subject to adjustment, of 74.4186 shares per $1,000 principal amount at any time prior to the maturity date. This represents an initial conversion price of approximately $13.44 per share. These Convertible Senior Notes will be equal in right of payment to our existing Senior Notes, discussed above, and will be senior in right of payment to our existing Convertible Junior Debentures, discussed below. Debt issuance costs are being amortized to interest expense over the contractual life of the Convertible Senior Notes. The provisions of the Convertible Senior Notes are complex. The description above is not intended to be complete in all respects. Moreover, that description is qualified in its entirety by the terms of the notes, which are contained in the Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 26, 2010, between us and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, and the Indenture dated as of October 15, 2000, between us and the trustee.

Interest payments on the Convertible Senior Notes were $8.6 million in each of the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011.

Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures

At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 we had outstanding $389.5 million principal amount of 9% Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures due in 2063 (the “debentures”). The debentures have an effective interest rate of 19% that reflects our non-convertible debt borrowing rate at the time of issuance. At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 the amortized value of the principal amount of the debentures is reflected as a liability on our consolidated balance sheet of $370.2 million and $344.4 million, respectively, with the unamortized discount reflected in equity. The debentures rank junior to all of our existing and future senior indebtedness.

Violations of the covenants under the Indenture governing the debentures, including covenants to provide certain documents to the trustee, are not events of default under the Indenture and would not allow the acceleration of amounts that we owe under the debentures. Similarly, events of default under, or acceleration of, any of our other obligations, including those described above, would not allow the acceleration of amounts that we owe under the debentures. However, if we fail to pay principal or interest when due under the debentures, then the holders of 25% or more of the debentures would have the right to accelerate the maturity of them. In addition, the trustee of the debentures could, independent of any action by holders, accelerate the maturity of the debentures. The amounts we owe under the Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures would also be accelerated upon certain bankruptcy or insolvency-related events involving our holding company, including the appointment of a custodian of it or any substantial part of its properties.

Interest on the debentures is payable semi-annually in arrears on April 1 and October 1 of each year. As long as no event of default with respect to the debentures has occurred and is continuing, we may defer interest, under an optional deferral provision, for one or more consecutive interest periods up to ten years without giving rise to an event of default. Deferred interest will accrue additional interest at the rate then applicable to the debentures. During an optional deferral period we may not pay or declare dividends on our common stock.

 
16

 
 
On September 11, 2012, we sent notice to the holders of record of our debentures that we were deferring to October 1, 2022, the interest payment of $17.5 million that was scheduled to be paid on October 1, 2012. During this 10-year deferral period the deferred interest will continue to accrue and compound semi-annually to the extent permitted by applicable law at an annual rate of 9%.

When interest on the debentures is deferred, we are required, not later than a specified time, to use reasonable commercial efforts to begin selling qualifying securities to persons who are not our affiliates. The specified time is one business day after we pay interest on the debentures that was not deferred, or if earlier, the fifth anniversary of the scheduled interest payment date on which the deferral started. Qualifying securities are common stock, certain warrants and certain non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock. The requirement to use such efforts to sell such securities is called the Alternative Payment Mechanism.

The net proceeds of Alternative Payment Mechanism sales are to be applied to the payment of deferred interest, including the compound portion. We cannot pay deferred interest other than from the net proceeds of Alternative Payment Mechanism sales, except at the final maturity of the debentures or at the tenth anniversary of the start of the interest deferral. The Alternative Payment Mechanism does not require us to sell common stock or warrants before the fifth anniversary of the interest payment date on which that deferral started if the net proceeds (counting any net proceeds of those securities previously sold under the Alternative Payment Mechanism) would exceed the 2% cap. The 2% cap is 2% of the average closing price of our common stock times the number of our outstanding shares of common stock. The average price is determined over a specified period ending before the issuance of the common stock or warrants being sold, and the number of outstanding shares is determined as of the date of our most recent publicly released financial statements.

We are not required to issue under the Alternative Payment Mechanism a total of more than 10 million shares of common stock, including shares underlying qualifying warrants. In addition, we may not issue under the Alternative Payment Mechanism qualifying preferred stock if the total net proceeds of all issuances would exceed 25% of the aggregate principal amount of the debentures.

The Alternative Payment Mechanism does not apply during any period between scheduled interest payment dates if there is a “market disruption event” that occurs over a specified portion of such period. Market disruption events include any material adverse change in domestic or international economic or financial conditions.

The provisions of the debentures are complex. The description above is not intended to be complete in all respects. Moreover, that description is qualified in its entirety by the terms of the debentures, which are contained in the Indenture, dated as of March 28, 2008, between us and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee.

We may redeem the debentures prior to April 6, 2013, in whole but not in part, only in the event of a specified tax or rating agency event, as defined in the Indenture. In any such event, the redemption price will be equal to the greater of (1) 100% of the principal amount of the debentures being redeemed and (2) the applicable make-whole amount, as defined in the Indenture, in each case plus any accrued but unpaid interest. On or after April 6, 2013, we may redeem the debentures in whole or in part from time to time, at our option, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the debentures being redeemed, plus any accrued and unpaid interest, if the closing sale price of our common stock exceeds 130% of the then prevailing conversion price of the debentures for at least 20 of the 30 trading days preceding notice of the redemption. We will not be able to redeem the debentures, other than in the event of a specified tax event or rating agency event, during an optional deferral period.

 
17

 
 
The debentures are currently convertible, at the holder's option, at an initial conversion rate, which is subject to adjustment, of 74.0741 common shares per $1,000 principal amount of debentures at any time prior to the maturity date. This represents an initial conversion price of approximately $13.50 per share. If a holder elects to convert their debentures, deferred interest owed on the debentures being converted is also converted into shares of our common stock. The conversion rate for any deferred interest is based on the average price that our shares traded at during a 5-day period immediately prior to the election to convert. In lieu of issuing shares of common stock upon conversion of the debentures occurring after April 6, 2013, we may, at our option, make a cash payment to converting holders equal to the value of all or some of the shares of our common stock otherwise issuable upon conversion.

Interest payments on the debentures were $17.5 million in each of the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011.

All debt

The par value and fair value of our debt at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 appears in the table below.
 
 
18

 
 
   
Par Value
   
Total
Fair Value
   
Quoted Prices in
Active Markets
for Identical
Assets (Level 1)
   
Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
   
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
 
   
(In thousands)
 
September 30, 2012
                             
Liabilities:
                             
Senior Notes
  $ 100,118     $ 73,086     $ 73,086     $ -     $ -  
Convertible Senior Notes
    345,000       234,600       234,600       -       -  
Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures
    389,522       106,390       -       106,390       -  
Total Debt
  $ 834,640     $ 414,076     $ 307,686     $ 106,390     $ -  
                                         
                                         
December 31, 2011
                                       
Liabilities:
                                       
Senior Notes
  $ 171,000     $ 116,708     $ 116,708     $ -     $ -  
Convertible Senior Notes
    345,000       202,256       202,256       -       -  
Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures
    389,522       189,648       -       189,648       -  
Total Debt
  $ 905,522     $ 508,612     $ 318,964     $ 189,648     $ -  

The fair value of our Senior Notes and Convertible Senior Notes was determined using publicly available trade information and are considered Level 1 securities as described in Note 8 – “Fair Value Measurements.” The fair value of our debentures was determined using available pricing for these debentures or similar instruments and are considered Level 2 securities as described in Note 8 – “Fair Value Measurements.”

The Senior Notes, Convertible Senior Notes and Convertible Junior Debentures are obligations of our holding company, MGIC Investment Corporation, and not of its subsidiaries. At September 30, 2012, we had approximately $425 million in cash and investments at our holding company. The net unrealized gains on our holding company investment portfolio were approximately $3 million at September 30, 2012. The modified duration of the holding company investment portfolio, excluding cash and cash equivalents, was 2.2 years at September 30, 2012.

Note 4 – Reinsurance
 
The reinsurance recoverable on loss reserves as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 was approximately $118 million and $155 million, respectively. Captive agreements are written on an annual book of business and the captives are required to maintain a separate trust account to support the combined reinsured risk on all annual books. MGIC is the sole beneficiary of the trust, and the trust account is made up of capital deposits by the lender captive, premium deposits by MGIC, and investment income earned.  These amounts are held in the trust account and are available to pay reinsured losses. The reinsurance recoverable on loss reserves related to captive agreements was approximately $115 million at September 30, 2012 which was supported by $324 million of trust assets, while at December 31, 2011 the reinsurance recoverable on loss reserves related to captives was $142 million which was supported by $359 million of trust assets. As of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 there was an additional $26 million and $27 million, respectively, of trust assets in captive agreements where there was no related reinsurance recoverable on loss reserves. Trust fund assets of $0.4 million and $39 million were transferred to us as a result of captive terminations during the first nine months of 2012 and 2011, respectively.
 
 
19

 
 
In the third quarter of 2011, our Australian writing company terminated a reinsurance agreement under which it had assumed business from a third party. As a result of that termination, it returned approximately $7 million in unearned premium and it has no further obligations under this reinsurance agreement. The termination of this reinsurance agreement had no significant impact on our remaining risk in force in Australia.

Note 5 – Litigation and Contingencies

Consumers are bringing a growing number of lawsuits against home mortgage lenders and settlement service providers. 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. MGIC’s 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 December 2004, following denial of class certification in June 2004. Since December 2006, class action litigation has been brought against a number of large lenders alleging that their captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA. On or about December 9, 2011, seven mortgage insurers (including MGIC) and a large mortgage lender (which was the named plaintiffs’ lender) were named as defendants in a complaint, alleged to be a class action, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Since then, nine similar cases have been filed naming various mortgage lenders and mortgage insurers (including MGIC) as defendants.  In one case, an amended complaint has been filed after MGIC’s motion to dismiss was granted. One case has been voluntarily dismissed and nine cases remain pending. The complaints in all nine of the remaining cases alleged various causes of action related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the mortgage lenders, including that the defendants violated RESPA by paying excessive premiums to the lenders’ captive reinsurer in relation to the risk assumed by that captive. MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the lawsuits. There can be no assurance that we will not be subject to further litigation under RESPA (or FCRA) or that the outcome of any such litigation, including the lawsuits mentioned above, would not have a material adverse effect on us.

In June 2005, in response to a letter from the New York Department of Financial Services, we provided information regarding captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements and other types of arrangements in which lenders receive compensation. In February 2006, the New York Department of Financial Services 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 New York Department of Financial Services 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 “MN Department”), which regulates insurance, we provided the MN Department with information about captive mortgage reinsurance and certain other matters. We subsequently provided additional information to the MN Department, and beginning in March 2008, the MN Department has sought additional information as well as answers to questions regarding captive mortgage reinsurance on several occasions, including as recently as May 2011.

 
20

 
 
In addition, beginning in June 2008, and as recently as December 2011, we received various subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), seeking information about captive mortgage reinsurance similar to that requested by the MN Department, but not limited in scope to the state of Minnesota. In January 2012, we received correspondence from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) indicating that the CFPB had opened an investigation into captive mortgage reinsurance premium ceding practices by private mortgage insurers. In that correspondence, the CFPB also requested, among other things, certain information regarding captive mortgage reinsurance transactions in which we participated. In June 2012, we received a Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB requiring additional information and documentation regarding captive mortgage reinsurance. We have met with, and expect to continue to meet with, the CFPB to discuss the Civil Investigative Demand and how to resolve its investigation. Other insurance departments or other officials, including attorneys general, may also seek information about or investigate captive mortgage reinsurance.

Various regulators, including the CFPB, state insurance commissioners and state attorneys general may bring actions seeking various forms of relief, including civil penalties and injunctions against violations of RESPA. The insurance law provisions of many states prohibit paying for the referral of insurance business and provide various mechanisms to enforce this prohibition. While we believe our captive reinsurance arrangements are in conformity with applicable laws and regulations, it is not possible to predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of any such reviews or investigations nor is it possible to predict their effect on us or the mortgage insurance industry.

We are subject to comprehensive, detailed regulation by state insurance departments. These regulations are principally designed for the protection of our insured policyholders, rather than for the benefit of investors. Although their scope varies, state insurance laws generally grant broad supervisory powers to agencies or officials to examine insurance companies and enforce rules or exercise discretion affecting almost every significant aspect of the insurance business. Given the recent significant losses incurred by many insurers in the mortgage and financial guaranty industries, our insurance subsidiaries have been subject to heightened scrutiny by insurance regulators. State insurance regulatory authorities could take actions, including changes in capital requirements or termination of waivers of capital requirements, that could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, we are uncertain whether the CFPB, established by the Dodd-Frank Act to regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services under federal law, will issue any rules or regulations that affect our business apart from any action it may take as a result of its investigation of captive mortgage reinsurance. Such rules and regulations could have a material adverse effect on us.

In October 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against MGIC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by a loan applicant on whose behalf a now-settled action we previously disclosed had been filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. In this lawsuit, the loan applicant alleged that MGIC discriminated against her and certain proposed class members on the basis of sex and familial status when MGIC underwrote their loans for mortgage insurance. In May 2011, the District Court granted MGIC’s motion to dismiss with respect to all claims except certain Fair Housing Act claims. On July 2, 2012, the District Court granted preliminary approval for a class action settlement of the lawsuit. The proposed settlement creates a settlement class of 265 borrowers.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, MGIC is required to deposit $500,000 into an escrow account to fund possible payments to affected borrowers. In addition, MGIC will pay the named plaintiff an “incentive fee” of $7,500 and pay class counsels’ fees of $337,500.  Any funds remaining in the escrow account after payment of all claims approved under the procedures established by the settlement will be returned to MGIC. The settlement is contingent upon the District Court’s final approval.

 
21

 
 
Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed against us and several of our executive officers were consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees’ Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) in June 2009. Due in part to its length and structure, it is difficult to summarize briefly the allegations in the Complaint but it appears the allegations are that we and our officers named in the Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about (i) loss development in our insurance in force, and (ii) C-BASS (a former minority-owned, unconsolidated, joint venture investment), including its liquidity. The Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the Complaints’ allegations regarding C-BASS. Our motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted in February 2010. In March 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Attached to this motion was a proposed Amended Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint alleged that we and two of our officers named in the Amended Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing to properly account for our investment in C-BASS. The Amended Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the Amended Complaint’s allegations regarding C-BASS. The Complaint was dismissed and the motion to file the Amended Complaint was denied. These decisions were affirmed by the Appeals Court in April 2012. In early July 2012, the plaintiffs re-filed a motion with the District Court for relief from that court’s judgment of dismissal on the ground of newly discovered evidence consisting of transcripts the plaintiffs obtained of testimony taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its now-terminated investigation regarding C-BASS. On October 3, 2012, the District Court denied the July 2012 motion and the plaintiffs did not appeal. Although this case has been resolved in our favor, other lawsuits alleging violations of the securities laws could be brought against us.

We understand several law firms have, among other things, issued press releases to the effect that they are investigating us, including whether the fiduciaries of our 401(k) plan breached their fiduciary duties regarding the plan’s investment in or holding of our common stock or whether we breached other legal or fiduciary obligations to our shareholders. We intend to defend vigorously any proceedings that may result from these investigations.

With limited exceptions, our bylaws provide that our officers and 401(k) plan fiduciaries are entitled to indemnification from us for claims against them.

In December 2009, Countrywide filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Francisco against MGIC. This complaint alleges that MGIC has denied, and continues to deny, valid mortgage insurance claims submitted by Countrywide and says it seeks declaratory relief regarding the proper interpretation of the insurance policies at issue. In October 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, to which the case had been removed, entered an order staying the litigation in favor of the arbitration proceeding we commenced against Countrywide in February 2010.

 
22

 
 
In the arbitration proceeding, we are seeking a determination that MGIC is entitled to rescind coverage on the loans involved in the proceeding. From January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2012, rescissions of coverage on Countrywide-related loans mitigated our paid losses on the order of $440 million. This amount is the amount we estimate we would have paid had the coverage not been rescinded. On a per loan basis, the average amount that we would have paid had the loans not been rescinded was approximately $72,100. Various materials exchanged by MGIC and Countrywide in 2011 bring into the dispute loans we did not consider before then to be Countrywide-related and loans on which MGIC rescinded coverage subsequent to those specified at the time MGIC began the proceeding (including loans insured through the bulk channel), and set forth Countrywide’s contention that, in addition to the claim amounts under coverage it alleges MGIC has improperly rescinded, Countrywide is entitled to other damages of almost $700 million as well as exemplary damages. Countrywide and MGIC have each selected 12 loans for which a three-member arbitration panel will determine coverage. While the panel’s determination will not be binding on the other loans at issue, the panel will identify the issues for these 24 “bellwether” loans and strive to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law in such a way as to aid the parties to apply them to the other loans at issue. The hearing before the panel on the bellwether loans has been scheduled to begin in March 2013.

We are in mediation in an effort to resolve our dispute with Countrywide, although we cannot predict whether the mediation will result in a resolution. If it does, a resolution with Countrywide will be subject to various conditions before it becomes effective. In connection with our mediation with Countrywide, we have voluntarily suspended rescissions related to loans that we believe could be covered by a potential resolution. As of September 30, 2012, coverage on approximately 1,700 loans, representing total potential claim payments of approximately $125 million, that we had determined was rescindable was affected by our decision to suspend such rescissions. Substantially all of these potential rescissions relate to claims received beginning in the first quarter of 2011 or later. If we are able to reach a resolution with Countrywide, under ASC 450-20, we would record the effects of the resolution in our accounts when we determine that it is probable the resolution will become effective and the financial effect on us can be reasonably estimated. If these conditions to recording are met, the financial statement effect on us would involve the recognition of additional loss, which would negatively impact our capital.

If we are not able to reach a resolution with Countrywide, we intend to defend MGIC against any further proceedings arising from Countrywide’s complaint and to advocate MGIC’s position in the arbitration, vigorously. Although it is reasonably possible that, when the proceedings are completed, there will be a determination that we were not entitled to rescind in all cases, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the potential liability. Under ASC 450-20, an estimated loss is accrued for only if we determine that the loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. Therefore, we have not accrued any reserves that would reflect an adverse outcome in this proceeding. An accrual for an adverse outcome in this (or any other) proceeding would be a reduction to our capital. In this regard, see Note 1 – “Basis of Presentation – Capital.”

At September 30, 2012, 32,560 loans in our primary delinquency inventory were Countrywide-related loans (approximately 22% of our primary delinquency inventory). As noted above, we have suspended Countrywide rescissions of coverage on loans that we believe could be included in a potential resolution with Countrywide. Although these loans are included in our delinquency inventory, for purposes of determining our reserve amounts, it is assumed that coverage on these loans will be rescinded. We expect a significant portion of the Countrywide loans in our delinquency inventory will cure their delinquency or their coverage will be rescinded and will not involve paid claims. From January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2012, of the claims on Countrywide-related loans that were resolved (a claim is resolved when it is paid or the coverage is rescinded; claims that are submitted but which are under review are not resolved until one of these two outcomes occurs), approximately 83% were paid and coverage on the remaining 17% were rescinded. Had we processed the rescissions we have suspended, these percentages would be approximately 79% and 21%, respectively.

 
23

 
 
The flow policies at issue with Countrywide are in the same form as the flow policies that we use with all of our customers, and the bulk policies at issue vary from one another, but are generally similar to those used in the majority of our Wall Street bulk transactions. Because our rescission practices with Countrywide do not differ from our practices with other servicers with which we have not entered into settlement agreements, an adverse result in the Countrywide proceeding may adversely affect the ultimate result of rescissions involving other servicers and lenders. From January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2012, we estimate that total rescissions mitigated our incurred losses by approximately $3.1 billion, which included approximately $2.8 billion of mitigation on paid losses, excluding $0.6 billion that would have been applied to a deductible. At September 30, 2012, we estimate that our total loss reserves were benefited from anticipated rescissions by approximately $0.5 billion.

In addition to the rescissions at issue with Countrywide, we have a substantial pipeline of claims investigations and pre-rescission rebuttals (including those involving loans related to Countrywide) that we expect will eventually result in future rescissions. For additional information about rescissions as well as rescission settlement agreements, see Note 12 – “Loss Reserves.”

MGIC and Freddie Mac disagree on the amount of the aggregate loss limit under eleven pool insurance policies that insure loans for a fixed period, usually ten years, after which the “sunset” date is reached and coverage terminates. These eleven policies, which each cover numerous individual loan pools, share a single, consolidated aggregate loss limit calculated based upon the initial principal balance of all loans insured under the policies. We believe that under the policies this aggregate loss limit decreases when an individual pool reaches its sunset date and thus the loans in that pool are no longer insured. Freddie Mac’s position is that under the policies the expiration of coverage on individual loan pools has no effect on the aggregate loss limit, which remains at the same level until the last of the policies that provide coverage for any of the pools terminates. The aggregate loss limit is approximately $535 million higher under Freddie Mac’s interpretation of the policies than under our interpretation.

On May 16, 2012, MGIC filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (the “Wisconsin Court”) against Freddie Mac and FHFA seeking declaratory relief regarding the proper interpretation of the pool insurance policies (“MGIC’s Lawsuit”). On June 8, 2012, Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer MGIC’s Lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “Virginia Court”). On July 20, 2012, FHFA made a motion to dismiss MGIC’s Lawsuit on the ground that the Wisconsin Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. These motions are currently pending.

On May 17, 2012, Freddie Mac filed a lawsuit in the Virginia Court against MGIC effectively seeking declaratory judgment regarding the proper interpretation of the pool insurance policies and on June 14, 2012, FHFA was added as a plaintiff (“Freddie Mac’s Lawsuit”). On July 5, 2012, the Virginia Court granted our motion to transfer Freddie Mac’s Lawsuit to the Wisconsin Court, but it stayed the transfer pending the Wisconsin Court’s determining that it had subject matter jurisdiction. Freddie Mac has asked the Virginia Court to reconsider its transfer decision. In August 2012, the court denied that request.

 
24

 
 
For subsequent developments regarding settlement of the pool insurance dispute, see Note 1 –  "Basis of Presentation – Capital."

We account for losses under our interpretation of the pool insurance policies. If we are unable to finalize a settlement with Freddie Mac, we intend to defend MGIC against the litigation described above and to advocate MGIC’s position in the litigation, vigorously. Although it is reasonably possible that our interpretation will not prevail in the litigation described above, under ASC 450-20, an estimated loss is accrued for only if we determine that the loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. Therefore, we have not accrued any reserves that would reflect an adverse outcome in this litigation. Changed circumstances that lead us to conclude a loss is probable in litigation would negatively impact our statutory capital and, depending on the amount, could exacerbate materially the current non-compliance with Capital Requirements. In the third quarter of 2012 the aggregate loss limit under our interpretation of the policy was exhausted, the policy was cancelled and approximately 15,600 pool notices were removed from the pool notice inventory and thus, we are no longer estimating loss reserves on this policy.
 
A non-insurance subsidiary of our holding company is a shareholder of the corporation that operates the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”).  Our subsidiary, as a shareholder of MERS, has been named as a defendant (along with MERS and its other shareholders) in seven lawsuits asserting various causes of action arising from allegedly improper recording and foreclosure activities by MERS.  Two of those lawsuits remain pending and the other five lawsuits have been dismissed without an appeal.  The damages sought in the remaining case are substantial.

 
25

 
 
Our mortgage insurance business utilizes its underwriting skills to provide an outsourced underwriting service to our customers known as contract underwriting. As part of our contract underwriting activities, we are responsible for the quality of our underwriting decisions in accordance with the terms of the contract underwriting agreements with customers. We may be required to provide certain remedies to our customers if certain standards relating to the quality of our underwriting work are not met, and we have an established reserve for such obligations. A generally positive economic environment for residential real estate that continued until approximately 2007 may have mitigated the effect of some of these costs in previous years. Historically, a material portion of our new insurance written through the flow channel has involved loans for which we provided contract underwriting services, including new insurance written between 2006 and 2008. Claims for remedies may be made a number of years after the underwriting work was performed. We believe the rescission of mortgage insurance coverage on loans for which we provided contract underwriting services may make a claim for a contract underwriting remedy more likely to occur. Beginning in the second half of 2009, we experienced an increase in claims for contract underwriting remedies, which has continued into the first nine months of 2012.

In addition to the matters described above, we are involved in other legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. In our opinion, based on the facts known at this time, the ultimate resolution of these ordinary course legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

See Note 11 – “Income Taxes” for a description of federal income tax contingencies.

Note 6 – Earnings (Loss) per Share

Our basic EPS is based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding, which excludes participating securities of 1.1 million for each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 1.0 million and 1.8 million, respectively, for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 because they were anti-dilutive due to our reported net loss. Typically, diluted EPS is based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding plus common stock equivalents which include certain stock awards, stock options and the dilutive effect of our convertible debt. In accordance with accounting guidance, if we report a net loss from continuing operations then our diluted EPS is computed in the same manner as the basic EPS. In addition if any common stock equivalents are anti-dilutive they are excluded from the calculation. The following includes a reconciliation of the weighted average number of shares; however for the three months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 common stock equivalents of 55.4 million and 55.5 million, respectively, and for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 common stock equivalents of 55.6 million were not included because they were anti-dilutive.
 
 
26

 

   
Three Months Ended
   
Nine Months Ended
 
   
September 30,
   
September 30,
 
                         
   
2012
   
2011
   
2012
   
2011
 
   
(In thousands, except per share data)
 
                         
Basic earnings per share:
                       
                         
Weighted average common shares outstanding
    202,014       201,109       201,851       200,983  
Net loss
  $ (246,942 )   $ (165,205 )   $ (540,388 )   $ (350,598 )
Basic loss per share
  $ (1.22 )   $ (0.82 )   $ (2.68 )   $ (1.74 )
                                 
Diluted earnings per share:
                               
Weighted-average shares - Basic
    202,014       201,109       201,851       200,983  
Common stock equivalents
    -       -       -       -  
                                 
Weighted-average shares - Diluted
    202,014       201,109       201,851       200,983  
                                 
Net loss
  $ (246,942 )   $ (165,205 )   $ (540,388 )   $ (350,598 )
                                 
Diluted loss per share
  $ (1.22 )   $ (0.82 )   $ (2.68 )   $ (1.74 )

Note 7 – Investments

The amortized cost, gross unrealized gains and losses and fair value of the investment portfolio at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 are shown below.
 
 
27

 
 
         
Gross
   
Gross
       
   
Amortized
   
Unrealized
   
Unrealized
   
Fair
 
September 30, 2012
 
Cost
   
Gains
   
Losses (1)
   
Value
 
   
(In thousands)
 
U.S. Treasury securities and obligations of U.S. government corporations and agencies
  $ 214,845     $ 4,438     $ (20 )   $ 219,263  
Obligations of U.S. states and political subdivisions
    1,228,688       47,441       (4,097 )     1,272,032  
Corporate debt securities
    2,512,767       52,240       (1,569 )     2,563,438  
Residential mortgage-backed securities
    446,979       10,160       (229 )     456,910  
Commercial mortgage-backed securities
    256,794       9,996       -       266,790  
Debt securities issued by foreign sovereign governments
    133,625       11,815       (27 )     145,413  
Total debt securities
    4,793,698       136,090       (5,942 )     4,923,846  
Equity securities
    2,736       182       -       2,918  
                                 
Total investment portfolio
  $ 4,796,434     $ 136,272     $ (5,942 )   $ 4,926,764  

         
Gross
   
Gross
       
   
Amortized
   
Unrealized
   
Unrealized
   
Fair
 
December 31, 2011
 
Cost
   
Gains
   
Losses (1)
   
Value
 
   
(In thousands)
 
U.S. Treasury securities and obligations of U.S. government corporations and agencies
  $ 592,108     $ 4,965     $ (36 )   $ 597,037  
Obligations of U.S. states and political subdivisions
    2,255,192       74,918       (6,639 )     2,323,471  
Corporate debt securities
    2,007,720       32,750       (7,619 )     2,032,851  
Residential mortgage-backed securities
    441,589       4,113       (285 )     445,417  
Commercial mortgage-backed securities
    257,530       7,404       -       264,934  
Debt securities issued by foreign sovereign governments
    146,755       10,441       (6 )     157,190  
Total debt securities
    5,700,894       134,591       (14,585 )     5,820,900  
Equity securities
    2,666       82       (1 )     2,747  
                                 
Total investment portfolio
  $ 5,703,560     $ 134,673     $ (14,586 )   $ 5,823,647  
 
(1) At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, there were no other-than-temporary impairment losses recorded in other comprehensive income.

The amortized cost and fair values of debt securities at September 30, 2012, by contractual maturity, are shown below. Expected maturities will differ from contractual maturities because borrowers may have the right to call or prepay obligations with or without call or prepayment penalties.  Because most auction rate and mortgage-backed securities provide for periodic payments throughout their lives, they are listed below in separate categories.
 
 
28

 

   
Amortized
   
Fair
 
September 30, 2012
 
Cost
   
Value
 
   
(In thousands)
 
             
Due in one year or less
  $ 780,615     $ 783,234  
Due after one year through five years
    1,902,433       1,952,796  
Due after five years through ten years
    869,795       920,848  
Due after ten years
    421,798       432,197  
                 
    $ 3,974,641     $ 4,089,075  
                 
Residential mortgage-backed securities
    446,979       456,910  
Commercial mortgage-backed securities
    256,794       266,790  
Auction rate securities (1)
    115,284       111,071  
                 
Total at September 30, 2012
  $ 4,793,698     $ 4,923,846  

(1) At September 30, 2012, all of the auction rate securities had a contractual maturity greater than 10 years.

At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the investment portfolio had gross unrealized losses of $5.9 million and $14.6 million, respectively.  For those securities in an unrealized loss position, the length of time the securities were in such a position, as measured by their month-end fair values, is as follows:
 
 
29

 
 
   
Less Than 12 Months
   
12 Months or Greater
   
Total
 
   
Fair
   
Unrealized
   
Fair
   
Unrealized
   
Fair
   
Unrealized
 
September 30, 2012
 
Value
   
Losses
   
Value
   
Losses
   
Value
   
Losses
 
   
(In thousands)
 
U.S. Treasury securities and obligations of U.S. government corporations and agencies
  $ 8,953     $ 20     $ -     $ -     $ 8,953     $ 20  
Obligations of U.S. states and political subdivisions
    66,542       856       64,227       3,241       130,769       4,097  
Corporate debt securities
    163,008       382       34,057       1,187       197,065       1,569  
Residential mortgage-backed securities
    37,600       229       -       -       37,600       229  
Debt securities issued by  foreign sovereign governments
    8,195       27       -       -       8,195       27  
Total investment portfolio
  $ 284,298     $ 1,514     $ 98,284     $ 4,428     $ 382,582     $ 5,942  

   
Less Than 12 Months
   
12 Months or Greater
   
Total
 
   
Fair
   
Unrealized
   
Fair
   
Unrealized
   
Fair
   
Unrealized
 
December 31, 2011
 
Value
   
Losses
   
Value
   
Losses
   
Value
   
Losses
 
   
(In thousands)
 
 
                                   
U.S. Treasury securities and obligations of U.S. government corporations and agencies
  $ 78,546     $ 36     $ -     $ -     $ 78,546     $ 36  
Obligations of U.S. states and political subdivisions
    188,879       837       137,965       5,802       326,844       6,639  
Corporate debt securities
    689,396       6,709       28,174       910       717,570       7,619  
Residential mortgage-backed securities
    120,405       285       -       -       120,405       285  
Debt securities issued by foreign sovereign governments
    484       6       -       -       484       6  
Equity securities
    -       -       33       1       33       1  
Total investment portfolio
  $ 1,077,710     $ 7,873     $ 166,172     $ 6,713     $ 1,243,882     $ 14,586  

The securities in an unrealized loss position for 12 months or greater are primarily auction rate securities (“ARS”) backed by student loans. See further discussion of these securities below. The unrealized losses in all categories of our investments were primarily caused by the difference in interest rates at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, compared to the interest rates at the time of purchase as well as the liquidity discount rate applied in our auction rate securities discounted cash flow model.

The fair value of our ARS backed by student loans was approximately $111 million and $170 million at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. ARS were intended to behave like short-term debt instruments because their interest rates are reset periodically through an auction process, most commonly at intervals of 7, 28 and 35 days. The same auction process had historically provided a means by which we may rollover the investment or sell these securities at par in order to provide us with liquidity as needed.  The ARS we hold are collateralized by portfolios of student loans, substantially all of which are ultimately 97% guaranteed by the United States Department of Education.  At September 30, 2012, our ARS portfolio was approximately 66% AAA/Aaa-rated by one or more of the major rating agencies.

 
30

 
 
In mid-February 2008, auctions began to fail due to insufficient buyers, as the amount of securities submitted for sale in auctions exceeded the aggregate amount of the bids.  For each failed auction, the interest rate on the security moves to a maximum rate specified for each security, and generally resets at a level higher than specified short-term interest rate benchmarks.  At September 30, 2012, our entire ARS portfolio, consisting of 13 investments, was subject to failed auctions; however, from the period when the auctions began to fail through September 30, 2012, $422 million in par value of ARS was either sold or called, with the average amount we received being approximately 96% of par which approximated the aggregate fair value prior to redemption. To date, we have collected all interest due on our ARS.

As a result of the persistent failed auctions, and the uncertainty of when these investments could be liquidated at par, the investment principal associated with failed auctions will not be accessible until successful auctions occur, a buyer is found outside of the auction process, the issuers establish a different form of financing to replace these securities, or final payments come due according to the contractual maturities of the debt issues.

Under the current guidance a debt security impairment is deemed other than temporary if we either intend to sell the security, or it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security before recovery or we do not expect to collect cash flows sufficient to recover the amortized cost basis of the security. During each of the first nine months of 2012 and 2011 there were other-than-temporary impairments (“OTTI”) recognized of $0.3 million.
 
The net realized investment gains (losses) and OTTI on the investment portfolio are as follows:
 
   
Three Months Ended
September 30,
   
Nine Months Ended
September 30,
 
   
2012
   
2011
   
2012
   
2011
 
   
(In thousands)
 
Net realized investment gains (losses) and OTTI on investments:
                       
Fixed maturities
  $ 8,901     $ 10,263     $ 110,335     $ 37,741  
Equity securities
    30       12       424       51  
Other
    (2,747 )     877       (742 )     855  
                                 
    $ 6,184     $ 11,152     $ 110,017     $ 38,647  
 
 
31

 
 
   
Three Months Ended
   
Nine Months Ended
 
   
September 30,
   
September 30,
 
   
2012
   
2011
   
2012
   
2011
 
 
(In thousands)
 
Net realized investment gains (losses) and OTTI on investments:
                       
Gains on sales
  $ 10,559     $ 12,007     $ 118,599     $ 43,952  
Losses on sales
    (4,375 )     (602 )     (8,243 )     (5,052 )
Impairment losses
    -       (253 )     (339 )     (253 )
                                 
    $ 6,184     $ 11,152     $ 110,017     $ 38,647  

We elected to realize these gains, by selling certain securities, given the favorable market conditions experienced in 2011 and the first nine months of 2012. We then reinvested the funds taking into account our anticipated future claim payment obligations. We also continue to reduce our investments in tax exempt municipal securities and increase our investments in taxable securities. For statutory purposes investments are generally held at amortized cost, therefore the realized gains increased our statutory policyholders’ position or statutory capital in 2011 and the first nine months of 2012.

Note 8 – Fair Value Measurements

In accordance with fair value guidance, we applied the following fair value hierarchy in order to measure fair value for assets and liabilities:

Level 1 – Quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets that we can access. Financial assets utilizing Level 1 inputs primarily include certain U.S. Treasury securities and obligations of U.S. government corporations and agencies and Australian government and semi government securities.

Level 2 – Quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active; and inputs, other than quoted prices, that are observable in the marketplace for the financial instrument. The observable inputs are used in valuation models to calculate the fair value of the financial instruments. Financial assets utilizing Level 2 inputs primarily include certain municipal and corporate bonds.

Level 3 – Valuations derived from valuation techniques in which one or more significant inputs or value drivers are unobservable. Level 3 inputs reflect our own assumptions about the assumptions a market participant would use in pricing an asset or liability. Financial assets utilizing Level 3 inputs include certain state and auction rate (backed by student loans) securities. Non-financial assets which utilize Level 3 inputs include real estate acquired through claim settlement.

To determine the fair value of securities available-for-sale in Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, independent pricing sources have been utilized. One price is provided per security based on observable market data. To ensure securities are appropriately classified in the fair value hierarchy, we review the pricing techniques and methodologies of the independent pricing sources and believe that their policies adequately consider market activity, either based on specific transactions for the issue valued or based on modeling of securities with similar credit quality, duration, yield and structure that were recently traded. A variety of inputs are utilized by the independent pricing sources including benchmark yields, reported trades, non-binding broker/dealer quotes, issuer spreads, two sided markets, benchmark securities, bids, offers and reference data including data published in market research publications. Inputs may be weighted differently for any security, and not all inputs are used for each security evaluation. Market indicators, industry and economic events are also considered. This information is evaluated using a multidimensional pricing model.  Quality controls are performed by the independent pricing sources throughout this process, which include reviewing tolerance reports, trading information and data changes, and directional moves compared to market moves. This model combines all inputs to arrive at a value assigned to each security.  In addition, on a quarterly basis, we perform quality controls over values received from the pricing sources which include reviewing tolerance reports, trading information and data changes, and directional moves compared to market moves. We have not made any adjustments to the prices obtained from the independent pricing sources.

 
32

 

Assets classified as Level 3 are as follows:

·
Securities available-for-sale classified in Level 3 are not readily marketable and are valued using internally developed models based on the present value of expected cash flows. Our Level 3 securities primarily consist of auction rate securities as observable inputs or value drivers are unavailable due to events described in Note 7 – “Investments.” Due to limited market information, we utilized a discounted cash flow (“DCF”) model to derive an estimate of fair value of these assets at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011. The assumptions used in preparing the DCF model included estimates with respect to the amount and timing of future interest and principal payments, the probability of full repayment of the principal considering the credit quality and guarantees in place, and the rate of return required by investors to own such securities given the current liquidity risk associated with them. The DCF model for the auction rate securities is based on the following key assumptions:

 
·
Nominal credit risk as substantially all of the underlying collateral of these securities is ultimately guaranteed by the United States Department of Education;
 
·
Time to liquidity ranging from December 31, 2013 through December 31, 2015;
 
·
Continued receipt of contractual interest; and
 
·
Discount rates ranging from 2.21% to 3.71%, which include a spread for liquidity risk.

A 1% change in the discount rate would change the value of our ARS by approximately $2.4 million. A two year change to the years to liquidity assumption would change the value of our ARS by approximately $4.6 million.

·
Real estate acquired through claim settlement is fair valued at the lower of our acquisition cost or a percentage of appraised value. The percentage applied to appraised value is based upon our historical sales experience adjusted for current trends.

 
33

 

Fair value measurements for assets measured at fair value included the following as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011:
 
   
Fair Value
   
Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)
   
Significant Other
Observable Inputs
(Level 2)
   
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
 
   
(In thousands)
 
September 30, 2012
                       
                         
U.S. Treasury securities and obligations of U.S. government corporations and agencies
  $ 219,263     $ 219,263     $ -     $ -  
Obligations of U.S. states and political subdivisions
    1,272,032       -       1,198,237       73,795  
Corporate debt securities
    2,563,438       -       2,522,513       40,925  
Residential mortgage-backed securities
    456,910       -       456,910       -  
Commercial mortgage-backed securities
    266,790       -       266,790       -  
Debt securities issued by foreign sovereign governments
    145,413       145,413       -       -  
Total debt securities
    4,923,846       364,676       4,444,450       114,720  
Equity securities
    2,918       2,597       -       321  
Total investments
  $ 4,926,764     $ 367,273     $ 4,444,450     $ 115,041  
Real estate acquired (1)
  $ 3,097     $ -     $ -     $ 3,097  
                                 
December 31, 2011
                               
                                 
U.S. Treasury securities and obligations of U.S. government corporations and agencies
  $ 597,037     $ 597,037     $ -     $ -  
Obligations of U.S. states and political subdivisions
    2,323,471       -       2,209,245       114,226  
Corporate debt securities
    2,032,851       1,455       1,971,168       60,228  
Residential mortgage-backed securities
    445,417       -       445,417       -  
Commercial mortgage-backed securities
    264,934       -       264,934       -  
Debt securities issued by foreign sovereign governments
    157,190       147,976       9,214       -  
Total debt securities
    5,820,900       746,468       4,899,978       174,454  
Equity securities
    2,747       2,426       -       321  
Total investments
  $ 5,823,647     $ 748,894     $ 4,899,978     $ 174,775  
Real estate acquired (1)
  $ 1,621     $ -     $ -     $ 1,621  

(1) Real estate acquired through claim settlement, which is held for sale, is reported in Other Assets on the consolidated balance sheet.

 
34

 
 
There were no transfers of securities between Level 1 and Level 2 during the first nine months of 2012 or 2011.

For assets measured at fair value using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3), a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 is as follows:
 
   
Obligations of U.S.
States and Political
Subdivisions
   
Corporate Debt
Securities
   
Equity
Securities
   
Total
Investments
   
Real Estate
Acquired
 
   
(In thousands)
 
Balance at June 30, 2012
  $ 83,981     $ 40,857     $ 321     $ 125,159     $ 3,074  
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses):
                                 
Included in earnings and reported as realized investment gains (losses), net
    (467 )     -       -       (467 )     -  
Included in earnings and reported as impairment losses, net
    -       -       -       -       -  
Included in earnings and reported as losses incurred, net
    -       -       -       -       (309 )
Included in other comprehensive income
    971       68       -       1,039       -  
Purchases
    -       -       -       -       2,718  
Sales
    (10,690 )     -       -       (10,690 )     (2,386 )
Transfers into Level 3
    -       -       -       -       -  
Transfers out of Level 3
    -       -       -       -       -  
Balance at September 30, 2012
  $ 73,795     $ 40,925     $ 321     $ 115,041     $ 3,097  
                                         
Amount of total losses included in earnings for the three months ended September 30, 2012 attributable to the change in unrealized losses on assets still held at September 30, 2012
  $ -     $ -     $ -     $ -     $ -  
 
 
35

 
 
   
Obligations of U.S.
States and Political
Subdivisions
   
Corporate Debt
Securities
   
Equity
Securities
   
Total
Investments
   
Real Estate
Acquired
 
   
(In thousands)
 
Balance at December 31, 2011
  $ 114,226     $ 60,228     $ 321     $ 174,775     $ 1,621  
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses):
                                 
Included in earnings and reported as realized investment gains (losses), net
    (2,992 )     (1,081 )     -       (4,073 )     -  
Included in earnings and reported as impairment losses, net
    -       (339 )     -       (339 )     -  
Included in earnings and reported as losses incurred, net
    -       -       -       -       (774 )
Included in other comprehensive income
    1,727       423       -       2,150       -  
Purchases
    27       -       -       27       8,688  
Sales
    (39,193 )     (18,306 )     -       (57,499 )     (6,438 )
Transfers into Level 3
    -       -       -       -       -  
Transfers out of Level 3
    -       -       -       -       -  
Balance at September 30, 2012
  $ 73,795     $ 40,925     $ 321     $ 115,041     $ 3,097  
                                         
Amount of total losses included in earnings for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 attributable to the change in unrealized losses on assets still held at September 30, 2012
  $ -     $ -     $ -     $ -     $ -  

 
36

 
 
   
Obligations of U.S.
States and Political
Subdivisions
   
Corporate Debt
Securities
   
Equity
Securities
   
Total
Investments
   
Real Estate
Acquired
 
   
(In thousands)
 
Balance at June 30, 2011
  $ 223,402     $ 70,039     $ 321     $ 293,762     $ 2,828  
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses):
                                 
Included in earnings and reported as net impairment losses recognized in earnings
    -       (200 )     -       (200 )     -  
Included in earnings and reported as losses incurred, net
    -       -       -       -       (85 )
Included in other comprehensive income
    342       451       -       793       -  
Purchases
    -       -       -       -       1,148  
Sales
    (2,537 )     -