Financial Guaranty Contracts Accounted for as Credit Derivatives

Credit Derivatives

The Company has a portfolio of financial guaranty contracts that meet the definition of a derivative in accordance with GAAP (primarily CDS).

Credit derivative transactions are governed by ISDA documentation and have different characteristics from financial guaranty insurance contracts. For example, the Company’s control rights with respect to a reference obligation under a credit derivative may be more limited than when the Company issues a financial guaranty insurance contract. In addition, there are more circumstances under which the Company may be obligated to make payments. Similar to a financial guaranty insurance contract, the Company would be obligated to pay if the obligor failed to make a scheduled payment of principal or interest in full. However, the Company may also be required to pay if the obligor became bankrupt or if the reference obligation were restructured if, after negotiation, those credit events are specified in the documentation for the credit derivative transactions. Furthermore, the Company may be required to make a payment due to an event that is unrelated to the performance of the obligation referenced in the credit derivative. If events of default or termination events specified in the credit derivative documentation were to occur, the non-defaulting or the non-affected party, which may be either the Company or the counterparty, depending upon the circumstances, may decide to terminate a credit derivative prior to maturity. In that case, the Company may be required to make a termination payment to its swap counterparty upon such termination. The Company may not unilaterally terminate a CDS contract; however, the Company on occasion has mutually agreed with various counterparties to terminate certain CDS transactions.

Credit Derivative Net Par Outstanding by Sector

The estimated remaining weighted average life of credit derivatives was 4.0 years at March 31, 2014 and 4.1 years at December 31, 2013. The components of the Company’s credit derivative net par outstanding are presented below.

Credit Derivatives

Subordination and Ratings



	As of March 31, 2014							As of December 31, 2013
Asset Type	Net Par Outstanding		Original Subordination(1)		Current Subordination(1)		Weighted Average Credit Rating	Net Par Outstanding		Original Subordination(1)		Current Subordination(1)		Weighted Average Credit Rating
	(dollars in millions)
Pooled corporate obligations:
Collateralized loan obligation/collateral bond obligations	$	17,634	32.4	%	36.1	%	AAA	$	19,323	32.4	%	34.0	%	AAA
Synthetic investment grade pooled corporate	9,759		21.6		20.3		AAA	9,754		21.6		20.0		AAA
Synthetic high yield pooled corporate	2,690		47.2		41.3		AAA	2,690		47.2		41.1		AAA
TruPS CDOs	3,436		45.4		33.7		BB	3,554		45.5		32.9		BB+
Market value CDOs of corporate obligations	1,807		23.6		30.6		AAA	2,000		24.4		30.5		AAA
Total pooled corporate obligations	35,326		31.4		31.6		AAA	37,321		31.5		30.6		AAA
U.S. RMBS:
Option ARM and Alt-A first lien	2,520		19.1		7.6		BB-	2,609		19.2		8.6		BB-
Subprime first lien	2,837		30.6		51.3		AA-	2,930		30.5		51.9		AA-
Prime first lien	258		10.9		1.8		CCC	264		10.9		3.2		CCC
Closed-end second lien and HELOCs	22		—		—		B-	23		—		—		B+
Total U.S. RMBS	5,637		24.4		29.2		BBB	5,826		24.4		30.1		BBB
CMBS	2,822		33.5		42.5		AAA	3,744		33.5		42.5		AAA
Other	7,533		—		—		A-	7,591		—		—		A-
Total	$	51,318					AA+	$	54,482					AA+

____________________


(1)	Represents the sum of subordinate tranches and over-collateralization and does not include any benefit from excess interest collections that may be used to absorb losses.

Except for TruPS CDOs, the Company’s exposure to pooled corporate obligations is highly diversified in terms of obligors and industries. Most pooled corporate transactions are structured to limit exposure to any given obligor and industry. The majority of the Company’s pooled corporate exposure consists of collateralized loan obligation (“CLO”) or synthetic pooled corporate obligations. Most of these CLOs have an average obligor size of less than 1% of the total transaction and typically restrict the maximum exposure to any one industry to approximately 10%. The Company’s exposure also benefits from embedded credit enhancement in the transactions which allows a transaction to sustain a certain level of losses in the underlying collateral, further insulating the Company from industry specific concentrations of credit risk on these deals.

The Company’s TruPS CDO asset pools are generally less diversified by obligors and industries than the typical CLO asset pool. Also, the underlying collateral in TruPS CDOs consists primarily of subordinated debt instruments such as TruPS issued by bank holding companies and similar instruments issued by insurance companies, REITs and other real estate related issuers while CLOs typically contain primarily senior secured obligations. However, to mitigate these risks TruPS CDOs were typically structured with higher levels of embedded credit enhancement than typical CLOs.

The Company’s exposure to “Other” CDS contracts is also highly diversified. It includes $2.5 billion of exposure to two pooled infrastructure transactions comprising diversified pools of international infrastructure project transactions and loans to regulated utilities. These pools were all structured with underlying credit enhancement sufficient for the Company to attach at AAA levels at origination. The remaining $5.0 billion of exposure in “Other” CDS contracts comprises numerous deals across various asset classes, such as commercial receivables, international RMBS, infrastructure, regulated utilities and consumer receivables. Of the total net par outstanding in the "Other" sector, $0.5 billion is rated BIG.

Distribution of Credit Derivative Net Par Outstanding by Internal Rating



	As of March 31, 2014				As of December 31, 2013
Ratings	Net Par Outstanding		% of Total		Net Par Outstanding		% of Total
	(dollars in millions)
AAA	$	35,157	68.5	%	$	38,244	70.2	%
AA	3,660		7.1		3,648		6.7
A	3,621		7.1		3,636		6.7
BBB	4,304		8.4		4,161		7.6
BIG	4,576		8.9		4,793		8.8
Credit derivative net par outstanding	$	51,318	100.0	%	$	54,482	100.0	%

Fair Value of Credit Derivatives

Net Change in Fair Value of Credit Derivatives Gain (Loss)



	First Quarter
	2014			2013
	(in millions)
Realized gains on credit derivatives (1)	$	20		$	28
Net credit derivative losses (paid and payable) recovered and recoverable	(1		)	(10		)
Realized gains (losses) and other settlements on credit derivatives	19			18
Net change in unrealized gains (losses) on credit derivatives (2)	(230		)	(610		)
Net change in fair value of credit derivatives	$	(211	)	$	(592	)

____________________


(1)	Includes accelerations due to terminations of CDS contracts of $0.2 million and $1 million related to net par of $1.1 billion and $1.1 billion for First Quarter 2014 and First Quarter 2013, respectively.


(2)	Except for net estimated credit impairments (i.e., net expected loss to be paid as discussed in Note 5), the unrealized gains and losses on credit derivatives are expected to reduce to zero as the exposure approaches its maturity date. With considerable volatility continuing in the market, unrealized gains (losses) on credit derivatives may fluctuate significantly in future periods.

Net Change in Unrealized Gains (Losses) on Credit Derivatives By Sector



	First Quarter
Asset Type	2014			2013
	(in millions)
Pooled corporate obligations	$	(58	)	$	(105	)
U.S. RMBS	(140		)	(457		)
CMBS	0			(3		)
Other	(32		)	(45		)
Total (1)	$	(230	)	$	(610	)

____________________


(1)	“Other” includes all other U.S. and international asset classes, such as commercial receivables, international infrastructure, international RMBS securities, and pooled infrastructure securities.

During First Quarter 2014, unrealized fair value losses were generated primarily in the U.S. RMBS prime first lien, Alt-A, Option ARM and subprime sectors, as well as pooled corporate obligations, due to wider implied net spreads. The wider implied net spreads were primarily a result of the decreased cost to buy protection in AGC’s name as the market cost of AGC’s credit protection decreased significantly during the period. These transactions were pricing at or above their floor levels (or the minimum rate at which the Company would consider assuming these risks based on historical experience); therefore when the cost of purchasing CDS protection on AGC, which management refers to as the CDS spread on AGC, decreased, the implied spreads that the Company would expect to receive on these transactions increased. The cost of AGM’s credit protection also decreased during First Quarter 2014 generating unrealized fair value losses on a XXX life insurance securitization transaction, due to wider implied net spreads. This did not have a significant impact on the remainder of AGM’s portfolio, as a significant portion of AGM’s policies continue to price at floor levels.

During First Quarter 2013, unrealized fair value losses were generated primarily in the U.S. RMBS sectors, as well as pooled corporate obligations, due to wider implied net spreads. The wider implied net spreads were primarily a result of the decreased cost to buy protection in AGC's name as the market cost of AGC's credit protection decreased significantly during the period. These transactions were pricing at or above their floor levels. To calculate the fair value of the CDS contracts, the Company matches the tenor of the CDS contracts in the Company's portfolio to the tenor of the CDS spread purchased in AGC's name. The cost of AGM's 5 Year and 1 Year credit protection also decreased during First Quarter 2013, but did not lead to significant fair value losses, as a significant portion of AGM policies continue to price at floor levels. First Quarter 2013 changes in fair value of credit derivatives in the Other category included a $20 million loss for guaranteed interest rate swaps identified during the quarter.

The impact of changes in credit spreads will vary based upon the volume, tenor, interest rates, and other market conditions at the time these fair values are determined. In addition, since each transaction has unique collateral and structural terms, the underlying change in fair value of each transaction may vary considerably. The fair value of credit derivative contracts also reflects the change in the Company’s own credit cost based on the price to purchase credit protection on AGC and AGM. The Company determines its own credit risk based on quoted CDS prices traded on the Company at each balance sheet date.

Five-Year CDS Spread

on AGC and AGM

Quoted price of CDS contract (in basis points)



	As of March 31, 2014	As of December 31, 2013	As of March 31, 2013	As of December 31, 2012
AGC	291	460	397	678
AGM	305	525	380	536

One-Year CDS Spread

on AGC and AGM

Quoted price of CDS contract (in basis points)



	As of March 31, 2014	As of December 31, 2013	As of March 31, 2013	As of December 31, 2012
AGC	55	185	59	270
AGM	70	220	60	257

Fair Value of Credit Derivatives

and Effect of AGC and AGM

Credit Spreads



	As of March 31, 2014			As of December 31, 2013
	(in millions)
Fair value of credit derivatives before effect of AGC and AGM credit spreads	$	(3,095	)	$	(3,442	)
Plus: Effect of AGC and AGM credit spreads	1,172			1,749
Net fair value of credit derivatives	$	(1,923	)	$	(1,693	)

The fair value of CDS contracts at March 31, 2014, before considering the implications of AGC’s and AGM’s credit spreads, is a direct result of continued wide credit spreads in the fixed income security markets and ratings downgrades. The asset classes that remain most affected are 2005-2007 vintages of prime first lien, Alt-A, Option ARM, subprime RMBS deals as well as trust-preferred and pooled corporate securities. Comparing March 31, 2014 with December 31, 2013, there was a narrowing of spreads primarily related to Alt-A first lien, Option ARM, and subprime RMBS transactions, as well as the Company's pooled corporate obligations. This narrowing of spreads combined with the runoff of par outstanding and termination of securities, resulted in a gain of approximately $347 million, before taking into account AGC’s or AGM’s credit spreads.

Management believes that the trading level of AGC’s and AGM’s credit spreads over the past several years has been due to the correlation between AGC’s and AGM’s risk profile and the current risk profile of the broader financial markets and to increased demand for credit protection against AGC and AGM as the result of its financial guaranty volume, as well as the overall lack of liquidity in the CDS market. Offsetting the benefit attributable to AGC’s and AGM’s credit spread were higher credit spreads in the fixed income security markets. The higher credit spreads in the fixed income security market are due to the lack of liquidity in the high yield CDO, TruPS CDO, and CLO markets as well as continuing market concerns over the 2005-2007 vintages of RMBS.

The following table presents the fair value and the present value of expected claim payments or recoveries (i.e. net expected loss to be paid as described in Note 5) for contracts accounted for as derivatives.

Net Fair Value and Expected Losses In Excess of Premiums

of Credit Derivatives by Sector



	Fair Value of Credit Derivative Asset (Liability), net						Present Value of Expected Claim (Payments) Recoveries In Excess of Premiums (1)
Asset Type	As of March 31, 2014			As of December 31, 2013			As of March 31, 2014			As of December 31, 2013
	(in millions)
Pooled corporate obligations	$	(89	)	$	(30	)	$	(20	)	$	(35	)
U.S. RMBS	(1,448		)	(1,308		)	(154		)	(147		)
CMBS	(2		)	(2		)	—			—
Other	(384		)	(353		)	40			43
Total	$	(1,923	)	$	(1,693	)	$	(134	)	$	(139	)

____________________


(1)	Represents the expected claim payments (recoveries) in excess of the present value of future installment fees to be received of $39 million as of March 31, 2014 and $45 million as of December 31, 2013. Includes R&W benefit of $175 million as of March 31, 2014 and $180 million as of December 31, 2013.

Ratings Sensitivities of Credit Derivative Contracts

Within the Company’s insured CDS portfolio, the transaction documentation for approximately $1.6 billion in CDS gross par insured as of March 31, 2014 provides that a downgrade of AGC's financial strength rating below BBB- or Baa3 would constitute a termination event that would allow the relevant CDS counterparty to terminate the affected transactions. As of December 31, 2013 such amount was $1.7 billion. If the CDS counterparty elected to terminate the affected transactions, AGC could be required to make a termination payment (or may be entitled to receive a termination payment from the CDS counterparty). The Company does not believe that it can accurately estimate the termination payments AGC could be required to make if, as a result of any such downgrade, a CDS counterparty terminated the affected transactions. These payments could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity and financial condition.

The transaction documentation for approximately $9.8 billion in CDS gross par insured as of March 31, 2014 requires AGC and Assured Guaranty Re Overseas Ltd. ("AGRO") to post eligible collateral to secure its obligations to make payments under such contracts. Eligible collateral is generally cash or U.S. government or agency securities; eligible collateral other than cash is valued at a discount to the face amount. For approximately $9.5 billion of such contracts, AGC has negotiated caps such that the posting requirement cannot exceed a certain fixed amount, regardless of the mark-to-market valuation of the exposure or the financial strength ratings of AGC. For such contracts, AGC need not post on a cash basis more than $665 million, although the value of the collateral posted may exceed such fixed amount depending on the advance rate agreed with the counterparty for the particular type of collateral posted. For the remaining approximately $341 million of such contracts, AGC or AGRO could be required from time to time to post additional collateral without such cap based on movements in the mark-to-market valuation of the underlying exposure. As of March 31, 2014, the Company was posting approximately $669 million to secure obligations under its CDS exposure, of which approximately $54 million related to such $341 million of notional. As of December 31, 2013, the Company was posting approximately $677 million, of which approximately $62 million related to $347 million of notional where AGC or AGRO could be required to post additional collateral based on movements in the mark-to-market valuation of the underlying exposure.

Sensitivity to Changes in Credit Spread

The following table summarizes the estimated change in fair values on the net balance of the Company’s credit derivative positions assuming immediate parallel shifts in credit spreads on AGC and AGM and on the risks that they both assume.

Effect of Changes in Credit Spread

As of March 31, 2014



Credit Spreads(1)	Estimated Net Fair Value (Pre-Tax)			Estimated Change in Gain/(Loss) (Pre-Tax)
	(in millions)
100% widening in spreads	$	(3,936	)	$	(2,013	)
50% widening in spreads	(2,929		)	(1,006		)
25% widening in spreads	(2,426		)	(503		)
10% widening in spreads	(2,124		)	(201		)
Base Scenario	(1,923		)	—
10% narrowing in spreads	(1,737		)	186
25% narrowing in spreads	(1,457		)	466
50% narrowing in spreads	(991		)	932

____________________


(1)	Includes the effects of spreads on both the underlying asset classes and the Company’s own credit spread.