Expected Loss to be Paid

This note provides information regarding expected claim payments to be made under all contracts in the insured portfolio.

Loss Estimation Process

The Company’s loss reserve committees estimate expected loss to be paid for all contracts by reviewing analyses that consider various scenarios with corresponding probabilities assigned to them. Depending upon the nature of the risk, the Company’s view of the potential size of any loss and the information available to the Company, that analysis may be based upon individually developed cash flow models, internal credit rating assessments, sector-driven loss severity assumptions and/or judgmental assessments. In the case of its assumed business, the Company may conduct its own analysis as just described or, depending on the Company’s view of the potential size of any loss and the information available to the Company, the Company may use loss estimates provided by ceding insurers. The Company monitors the performance of its transactions with expected losses, and each quarter the Company’s loss reserve committees review and refresh their loss projection assumptions, scenarios and the probabilities they assign to those scenarios based on actual developments during the quarter and their view of future performance.

The financial guaranties issued by the Company insure the credit performance of the guaranteed obligations over an extended period of time, in some cases over 30 years, and in most circumstances, the Company has no right to cancel such financial guaranties. As a result, the Company's estimate of ultimate losses on a policy is subject to significant uncertainty over the life of the insured transaction. Credit performance can be adversely affected by economic, fiscal and financial market variability over the life of most contracts.

The determination of expected loss to be paid is an inherently subjective process involving numerous estimates, assumptions and judgments by management, using both internal and external data sources with regard to frequency, severity of loss, economic projections, governmental actions, negotiations and other factors that affect credit performance. These estimates, assumptions and judgments, and the factors on which they are based, may change materially over a reporting period, and, as a result, the Company’s loss estimates may change materially over that same period.

The Company does not use traditional actuarial approaches to determine its estimates of expected losses. Actual losses will ultimately depend on future events or transaction performance and may be influenced by many interrelated factors that are difficult to predict. As a result, the Company's current projections of losses may be subject to considerable volatility and may not reflect the Company's ultimate claims paid. For information on the Company's loss estimation process, see Note 5, Expected Loss to be Paid, of Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data in AGL's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017.

In some instances, the terms of the Company's policy gives it the option to pay principal losses that have been recognized in the transaction but which it is not yet required to pay, thereby reducing the amount of guaranteed interest due in the future. The Company has sometimes exercised this option, which uses cash but reduces projected future losses.

The following tables present a roll forward of net expected loss to be paid for all contracts. The Company used risk-free rates for U.S. dollar denominated obligations that ranged from 0.0% to 3.20% with a weighted average of 3.03% as of September 30, 2018 and 0.00% to 2.78% with a weighted average of 2.38% as of December 31, 2017. Expected losses to be paid for transactions denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar represented approximately 3.2% and 3.7% of the total as of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively.

Net Expected Loss to be Paid

Roll Forward



	Third Quarter						Nine Months
	2018			2017			2018			2017
	(in millions)
Net expected loss to be paid, beginning of period	$	1,432		$	1,297		$	1,303		$	1,198
Net expected loss to be paid on the SGI portfolio as of June 1, 2018 (see Note 2)	—			—			131			—
Net expected loss to be paid on the MBIA UK portfolio as of January 10, 2017	—			—			—			21
Economic loss development (benefit) due to:
Accretion of discount	10			8			27			24
Changes in discount rates	(9		)	(6		)	(15		)	28
Changes in timing and assumptions	(1		)	202			(17		)	246
Total economic loss development (benefit)	0			204			(5		)	298
Net (paid) recovered losses	(241		)	(209		)	(238		)	(225		)
Net expected loss to be paid, end of period	$	1,191		$	1,292		$	1,191		$	1,292

Net Expected Loss to be Paid

Roll Forward by Sector

Third Quarter 2018



	Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of June 30, 2018		Economic Loss Development / (Benefit)			(Paid) Recovered Losses (1)			Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of September 30, 2018 (2)
	(in millions)
Public finance:
U.S. public finance	$	1,041	$	42		$	(251	)	$	832
Non-U.S. public finance	41		(3		)	—			38
Public finance	1,082		39			(251		)	870
Structured finance:
U.S. RMBS	326		(40		)	17			303
Other structured finance	24		1			(7		)	18
Structured finance	350		(39		)	10			321
Total	$	1,432	$	0		$	(241	)	$	1,191

Net Expected Loss to be Paid

Roll Forward by Sector

Third Quarter 2017



	Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of June 30, 2017		Economic Loss Development / (Benefit)			(Paid) Recovered Losses (1)			Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of September 30, 2017
	(in millions)
Public finance:
U.S. public finance	$	1,044	$	229		$	(227	)	$	1,046
Non-U.S. public finance	42		0			5			47
Public finance	1,086		229			(222		)	1,093
Structured finance:
U.S. RMBS	182		(19		)	13			176
Other structured finance	29		(6		)	0			23
Structured finance	211		(25		)	13			199
Total	$	1,297	$	204		$	(209	)	$	1,292

Net Expected Loss to be Paid

Roll Forward by Sector

Nine Months 2018



	Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of December 31, 2017 (2)		Net Expected Loss to be Paid on SGI Portfolio as of June 1, 2018		Economic Loss Development / (Benefit)			(Paid) Recovered Losses (1)			Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of September 30, 2018 (2)
	(in millions)
Public finance:
U.S. public finance	$	1,157	$	0	$	59		$	(384	)	$	832
Non-U.S. public finance	46		1		(9		)	0			38
Public finance	1,203		1		50			(384		)	870
Structured finance:
U.S. RMBS	73		130		(52		)	152			303
Other structured finance	27		—		(3		)	(6		)	18
Structured finance	100		130		(55		)	146			321
Total	$	1,303	$	131	$	(5	)	$	(238	)	$	1,191

Net Expected Loss to be Paid

Roll Forward by Sector

Nine Months 2017



	Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of December 31, 2016		Net Expected Loss to be Paid on MBIA UK as of January 10, 2017		Economic Loss Development / (Benefit)			(Paid) Recovered Losses (1)			Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of September 30, 2017
	(in millions)
Public finance:
U.S. public finance	$	871	$	—	$	431		$	(256	)	$	1,046
Non-U.S. public finance	33		13		(4		)	5			47
Public finance	904		13		427			(251		)	1,093
Structured finance:
U.S. RMBS	206		—		(70		)	40			176
Other structured finance	88		8		(59		)	(14		)	23
Structured finance	294		8		(129		)	26			199
Total	$	1,198	$	21	$	298		$	(225	)	$	1,292

____________________

(1)

Net of ceded paid losses, whether or not such amounts have been settled with reinsurers. Ceded paid losses are typically settled 45 days after the end of the reporting period. Such amounts are recorded in reinsurance recoverable on paid losses included in other assets. The Company paid $6 million and $7 million in loss adjustment expenses (LAE) for Third Quarter 2018 and 2017, respectively, and $17 million and $16 million in LAE for Nine Months 2018 and 2017, respectively.


(2)	Includes expected LAE to be paid of $15 million as of September 30, 2018 and $23 million as of December 31, 2017.

The following table presents the present value of net expected loss to be paid and the net economic loss development for all contracts by accounting model.

Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) and

Net Economic Loss Development (Benefit)

By Accounting Model



	Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered)						Net Economic Loss Development (Benefit)
	As of September 30, 2018			As of December 31, 2017			Third Quarter 2018			Third Quarter 2017			Nine Months 2018			Nine Months 2017
	(in millions)
Financial guaranty insurance	$	1,112		$	1,226		$	1		$	207		$	(9	)	$	328
FG VIEs (1) and other	83			91			(3		)	(2		)	(7		)	(6		)
Credit derivatives (2)	(4		)	(14		)	2			(1		)	11			(24		)
Total	$	1,191		$	1,303		$	0		$	204		$	(5	)	$	298

___________________

(1) See Note 9, Variable Interest Entities.

(2) See Note 8, Contracts Accounted for as Credit Derivatives.

Selected U.S. Public Finance Transactions

The Company insured general obligation bonds of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and various obligations of its related authorities and public corporations aggregating $4.8 billion net par as of September 30, 2018, all of which was BIG. For additional information regarding the Company's exposure to general obligations of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and various obligations of its related authorities and public corporations, see "Exposure to Puerto Rico" in Note 4, Outstanding Exposure.

As of September 30, 2018, the Company had insured $331 million net par outstanding of general obligation bonds issued by the City of Hartford, Connecticut, most of which was rated BIG at December 31, 2017. In the first quarter of 2018, the State of Connecticut entered into a contract assistance agreement with the City of Hartford under which the state will pay the debt service costs of the City’s general obligation bonds, including those insured by the Company. As a result, the Company reduced the corresponding expected losses as of March 31, 2018 and upgraded this exposure to investment grade.

The Company had approximately $18 million of net par exposure as of September 30, 2018 to bonds issued by Parkway East Public Improvement District (District), which is located in Madison County, Mississippi (the County). The bonds, which are rated BIG, are payable from special assessments on properties within the District, as well as amounts paid under a contribution agreement with the County in which the County covenants that it will provide funds in the event special assessments are not sufficient to make a debt service payment. The special assessments have not been sufficient to pay debt service in full. In earlier years, the County provided funding to cover the balance of the debt service requirement, but subsequently claimed the District’s failure to reimburse it within the two years stipulated in the contribution agreement means that the County is not required to provide funding until it is reimbursed. See “Recovery Litigation” at the end of this note for the settlement agreement reached between the County, the District and AGC with respect to the County's obligations.

On February 25, 2015, a plan of adjustment resolving the bankruptcy filing of the City of Stockton, California under chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code became effective. As of September 30, 2018, the Company’s net par subject to the plan consisted of $110 million of pension obligation bonds. As part of the plan of adjustment, the City will repay any claims paid on the pension obligation bonds from certain fixed payments and certain variable payments contingent on the City’s revenue growth.

The Company projected that its total net expected loss across its troubled U.S. public finance exposures as of September 30, 2018 including those mentioned above, would be $832 million, compared with a net expected loss of $1,157 million as of December 31, 2017. The economic loss development in Third Quarter 2018 was $42 million, which was primarily attributable to Puerto Rico exposures. The economic loss development for Nine Months 2018 was $59 million, which was primarily attributable to Puerto Rico exposures, partially offset by a benefit related to the State of Connecticut's agreement to pay the debt service costs of certain bonds of the City of Hartford, including the bonds insured by the Company.

Selected Non - U.S. Public Finance Transactions

The Company insures and reinsures transactions with sub-sovereign exposure to various Spanish and Portuguese issuers where a Spanish and Portuguese sovereign default may cause the sub-sovereigns also to default. The Company's exposure net of reinsurance to these Spanish and Portuguese exposures is $437 million and $71 million, respectively. The Company rates all of these exposures BIG due to the financial condition of Spain and Portugal and their dependence on the sovereign.

The Company also has exposure to infrastructure bonds dependent on payments from Hungarian governmental entities. The Company's exposure, net of reinsurance, to these Hungarian transactions is $179 million, all of which was rated BIG.

The Company also insures an obligation backed by the availability and toll revenues of a major arterial road into a city in the U.K. with $201 million of net par outstanding as of September 30, 2018. This transaction has been underperforming due to higher costs compared with expectations at underwriting. In the first quarter of 2018, the Company changed its traffic assumptions for this road, resulting in a benefit.

These transactions, together with other non-U.S. public finance insured obligations, had expected loss to be paid of $38 million as of September 30, 2018, compared with $46 million as of December 31, 2017. The economic benefit of approximately $3 million for Third Quarter 2018 was attributable mainly to changes in certain probability of default assumptions. The economic benefit of approximately $9 million during Nine Months 2018 was attributable mainly to the U.K. arterial road and changes in probability of default assumptions mentioned above.

U.S. RMBS Loss Projections

The Company projects losses on its insured U.S. RMBS on a transaction-by-transaction basis by projecting the performance of the underlying pool of mortgages over time and then applying the structural features (i.e., payment priorities and tranching) of the RMBS and any expected representation and warranty (R&W) recoveries/payables to the projected performance of the collateral over time. The resulting projected claim payments or reimbursements are then discounted using risk-free rates.

Based on its observation during the period of the performance of its insured transactions (including delinquencies, liquidation rates and loss severities) as well as the residential property market and economy in general, the Company chose to make the changes to the assumptions it uses to project RMBS losses shown in the tables of assumptions in the sections below.

The following table presents the U.S. RMBS net economic loss development (benefit).

Net Economic Loss Development (Benefit)

U.S. RMBS



	Third Quarter						Nine Months
	2018			2017			2018			2017
	(in millions)
First lien U.S. RMBS	$	(13	)	$	1		$	4		$	(22	)
Second lien U.S. RMBS	(27		)	(20		)	(56		)	(48		)

U.S. First Lien RMBS Loss Projections: Alt-A First Lien, Option ARM, Subprime and Prime

The majority of projected losses in first lien RMBS transactions are expected to come from non-performing mortgage loans (those that are or in the past twelve months have been two or more payments behind, have been modified, are in foreclosure, or have been foreclosed upon). Changes in the amount of non-performing loans from the amount projected in the previous period are one of the primary drivers of loss development in this portfolio. In order to determine the number of defaults resulting from these delinquent and foreclosed loans, the Company applies a liquidation rate assumption to loans in each of various non-performing categories. The Company arrived at its liquidation rates based on data purchased from a third party provider and assumptions about how delays in the foreclosure process and loan modifications may ultimately affect the rate at which loans are liquidated. Each quarter the Company reviews the most recent twelve months of this data and (if necessary) adjusts its liquidation rates based on its observations. The following table shows liquidation assumptions for various non-performing categories.

First Lien Liquidation Rates



	September 30, 2018	June 30, 2018	December 31, 2017
Delinquent/Modified in the Previous 12 Months
Alt-A and Prime	20%	20%	20%
Option ARM	20	20	20
Subprime	20	20	20
30 – 59 Days Delinquent
Alt-A and Prime	30	30	30
Option ARM	35	35	35
Subprime	40	40	40
60 – 89 Days Delinquent
Alt-A and Prime	35	35	40
Option ARM	45	45	50
Subprime	50	50	50
90+ Days Delinquent
Alt-A and Prime	40	40	55
Option ARM	55	55	60
Subprime	55	55	55
Bankruptcy
Alt-A and Prime	45	45	45
Option ARM	50	50	50
Subprime	40	40	40
Foreclosure
Alt-A and Prime	55	55	65
Option ARM	65	65	70
Subprime	65	65	65
Real Estate Owned
All	100	100	100

While the Company uses liquidation rates as described above to project defaults of non-performing loans (including current loans modified or delinquent within the last 12 months), it projects defaults on presently current loans by applying a conditional default rate (CDR) trend. The start of that CDR trend is based on the defaults the Company projects will emerge from currently nonperforming, recently nonperforming and modified loans. The total amount of expected defaults from the non-performing loans is translated into a constant CDR (i.e., the CDR plateau), which, if applied for each of the next 36 months, would be sufficient to produce approximately the amount of defaults that were calculated to emerge from the various delinquency categories. The CDR thus calculated individually on the delinquent collateral pool for each RMBS is then used as the starting point for the CDR curve used to project defaults of the presently performing loans.

In the most heavily weighted scenario (the base case), after the initial 36-month CDR plateau period, each transaction’s CDR is projected to improve over 12 months to an intermediate CDR (calculated as 20% of its CDR plateau); that intermediate CDR is held constant for 36 months and then trails off in steps to a final CDR of 5% of the CDR plateau. In the base case, the Company assumes the final CDR will be reached 4.75 years after the initial 36-month CDR plateau period. Under the Company’s methodology, defaults projected to occur in the first 36 months represent defaults that can be attributed to loans that were modified or delinquent in the last 12 months or that are currently delinquent or in foreclosure, while the defaults projected to occur using the projected CDR trend after the first 36 month period represent defaults attributable to borrowers that are currently performing or are projected to reperform.

Another important driver of loss projections is loss severity, which is the amount of loss the transaction incurs on a loan after the application of net proceeds from the disposal of the underlying property. Loss severities experienced in first lien transactions reached historically high levels, and the Company is assuming in the base case that elevated levels generally will continue for another 18 months. The Company determines its initial loss severity based on actual recent experience. Each quarter the Company reviews available data and (if necessary) adjusts its severities based on its observations. The Company then assumes that loss severities begin returning to levels consistent with underwriting assumptions beginning after the initial 18 month period, declining to 40% in the base case over 2.5 years.

The following table shows the range as well as the average, weighted by outstanding net insured par, for key assumptions used in the calculation of expected loss to be paid for individual transactions for vintage 2004 - 2008 first lien U.S. RMBS.

Key Assumptions in Base Case Expected Loss Estimates

First Lien RMBS



	As of September 30, 2018					As of June 30, 2018					As of December 31, 2017
	Range				Weighted Average	Range				Weighted Average	Range				Weighted Average
Alt-A First Lien
Plateau CDR	0.9	%	-	11.2%	4.6%	0.7	%	-	12.2%	4.7%	1.3	%	-	9.8%	5.2%
Final CDR	0.0	%	-	0.6%	0.2%	0.0	%	-	0.6%	0.2%	0.1	%	-	0.5%	0.3%
Initial loss severity:
2005 and prior	60%					60%					60%
2006	70%					80%					80%
2007+	70%					70%					70%
Option ARM
Plateau CDR	2.1	%	-	8.7%	5.8%	2.1	%	-	8.5%	5.9%	2.5	%	-	7.0%	5.9%
Final CDR	0.1	%	-	0.4%	0.3%	0.1	%	-	0.4%	0.3%	0.1	%	-	0.3%	0.3%
Initial loss severity:
2005 and prior	60%					60%					60%
2006	60%					70%					70%
2007+	70%					75%					75%
Subprime
Plateau CDR	2.3	%	-	18.6%	6.7%	3.2	%	-	18.4%	6.9%	3.5	%	-	13.1%	7.8%
Final CDR	0.1	%	-	0.9%	0.3%	0.2	%	-	0.9%	0.3%	0.2	%	-	0.7%	0.4%
Initial loss severity:
2005 and prior	80%					80%					80%
2006	75%					85%					90%
2007+	95%					95%					95%

The rate at which the principal amount of loans is voluntarily prepaid may impact both the amount of losses projected (since that amount is a function of the CDR, the loss severity and the loan balance over time) as well as the amount of excess spread (the amount by which the interest paid by the borrowers on the underlying loan exceeds the amount of interest owed on the insured obligations). The assumption for the voluntary conditional prepayment rate (CPR) follows a similar pattern to that of the CDR. The current level of voluntary prepayments is assumed to continue for the plateau period before gradually increasing over 12 months to the final CPR, which is assumed to be 15% in the base case. For transactions where the initial CPR is higher than the final CPR, the initial CPR is held constant and the final CPR is not used. These CPR assumptions are the same as those the Company used for June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017.

In estimating expected losses, the Company modeled and probability weighted sensitivities for first lien transactions by varying its assumptions of how fast a recovery is expected to occur. One of the variables used to model sensitivities was how quickly the CDR returned to its modeled equilibrium, which was defined as 5% of the initial CDR. The Company also stressed CPR and the speed of recovery of loss severity rates. The Company probability weighted a total of five scenarios as of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017.

Total expected loss to be paid on all first lien U.S. RMBS was $237 million and $123 million as of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively. The reinsurance of the SGI portfolio added $113 million of net expected loss to first lien U.S. RMBS on June 1, 2018. The Company used a similar approach to establish its pessimistic and optimistic scenarios as of September 30, 2018 as it used as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, increasing and decreasing the periods of stress from those used in the base case.

In the Company's most stressful scenario where loss severities were assumed to rise and then recover over nine years and the initial ramp-down of the CDR was assumed to occur over 15 months, expected loss to be paid would increase from current projections by approximately $57 million for all first lien U.S. RMBS transactions.

In the Company's least stressful scenario where the CDR plateau was six months shorter (30 months, effectively assuming that liquidation rates would improve) and the CDR recovery was more pronounced (including an initial ramp-down of the CDR over nine months), expected loss to be paid would decrease from current projections by approximately $35 million for all first lien U.S. RMBS transactions.

U.S. Second Lien RMBS Loss Projections

Second lien RMBS transactions include both home equity lines of credit (HELOC) and closed end second lien mortgages. The Company believes the primary variable affecting its expected losses in second lien RMBS transactions is the amount and timing of future losses in the collateral pool supporting the transactions. Expected losses are also a function of the structure of the transaction, the voluntary prepayment rate (typically also referred to as CPR of the collateral), the interest rate environment, and assumptions about loss severity.

In second lien transactions the projection of near-term defaults from currently delinquent loans is relatively straightforward because loans in second lien transactions are generally “charged off” (treated as defaulted) by the securitization’s servicer once the loan is 180 days past due. The Company estimates the amount of loans that will default over the next six months by calculating current representative liquidation rates. Similar to first liens, the Company then calculates a CDR for six months, which is the period over which the currently delinquent collateral is expected to be liquidated. That CDR is then used as the basis for the plateau CDR period that follows the embedded plateau losses.

For the base case scenario, the CDR (the plateau CDR) was held constant for six months. Once the plateau period has ended, the CDR is assumed to gradually trend down in uniform increments to its final long-term steady state CDR. (The long-term steady state CDR is calculated as the constant CDR that would have yielded the amount of losses originally expected at underwriting.) In the base case scenario, the time over which the CDR trends down to its final CDR is 28 months. Therefore, the total stress period for second lien transactions is 34 months, comprising six months of delinquent loan liquidations, followed by 28 months of decrease to the steady state CDR, the same as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017.

HELOC loans generally permit the borrower to pay only interest for an initial period (often ten years) and, after that period, require the borrower to make both the monthly interest payment and a monthly principal payment. This causes the borrower's total monthly payment to increase, sometimes substantially, at the end of the initial interest-only period. In the prior periods, as the HELOC loans underlying the Company's insured HELOC transactions reached their principal amortization period, the Company incorporated an assumption that a percentage of loans reaching their principal amortization periods would default around the time of the payment increase.

The HELOC loans underlying the Company's insured HELOC transactions are now past their original interest-only reset date, although a significant number of HELOC loans were modified to extend the original interest-only period for another five years. As a result, in 2017, the Company eliminated the CDR increase that was applied when such loans reached their principal amortization period. In addition, based on the average performance history, starting in the third quarter of 2017, the Company applied a CDR floor of 2.5% for the future steady state CDR on all its HELOC transactions.

When a second lien loan defaults, there is generally a very low recovery. The Company assumed as of September 30, 2018 that it will generally recover only 2% of future defaulting collateral at the time of charge-off, with additional amounts of post charge-off recoveries assumed to come in over time. This is the same assumption used as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017.

The rate at which the principal amount of loans is prepaid may impact both the amount of losses projected as well as the amount of excess spread. In the base case, an average CPR (based on experience of the past year) is assumed to continue until the end of the plateau before gradually increasing to the final CPR over the same period the CDR decreases. The final CPR is assumed to be 15% for second lien transactions (in the base case), which is lower than the historical average but reflects the Company’s continued uncertainty about the projected performance of the borrowers in these transactions. For transactions where the initial CPR is higher than the final CPR, the initial CPR is held constant and the final CPR is not used. This pattern is generally consistent with how the Company modeled the CPR as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017. To the extent that prepayments differ from projected levels it could materially change the Company’s projected excess spread and losses.

In estimating expected losses, the Company modeled and probability weighted five scenarios, each with a different CDR curve applicable to the period preceding the return to the long-term steady state CDR. The Company believes that the level of the elevated CDR and the length of time it will persist and the ultimate prepayment rate are the primary drivers behind the likely amount of losses the collateral will suffer.

The Company continues to evaluate the assumptions affecting its modeling results. The Company believes the most important driver of its projected second lien RMBS losses is the performance of its HELOC transactions. Total expected loss to be paid on all second lien U.S. RMBS was $66 million as of September 30, 2018 and total expected recovery on all second lien U.S. RMBS was $50 million as of December 31, 2017, respectively. This change was due primarily to cash received in 2018 from a favorable settlement of R&W litigation reached in late December 2017 and the addition of $17 million of net expected loss on second lien U.S. RMBS assumed in the SGI Transaction on June 1, 2018.

The following table shows the range as well as the average, weighted by outstanding net insured par, for key assumptions for the calculation of expected loss to be paid for individual transactions for vintage 2004 - 2008 HELOCs.

Key Assumptions in Base Case Expected Loss Estimates

HELOCs



	As of September 30, 2018					As of June 30, 2018					As of December 31, 2017
	Range				Weighted Average	Range				Weighted Average	Range				Weighted Average
Plateau CDR	2.9	%	-	31.7%	11.5%	4.8	%	-	28.5%	11.1%	2.7	%	-	19.9%	11.4%
Final CDR trended down to	2.5	%	-	3.2%	2.5%	2.5	%	-	3.2%	2.5%	2.5	%	-	3.2%	2.5%
Liquidation rates:
Delinquent/Modified in the Previous 12 Months	20%					20%					20%
30 – 59 Days Delinquent	40					40					45
60 – 89 Days Delinquent	55					55					60
90+ Days Delinquent	75					75					75
Bankruptcy	55					55					55
Foreclosure	65					65					70
Real Estate Owned	100					100					100
Loss severity	98%					98%					98%

The Company’s base case assumed a six month CDR plateau and a 28 month ramp-down (for a total stress period of 34 months). The Company also modeled a scenario with a longer period of elevated defaults and another with a shorter period of elevated defaults. Increasing the CDR plateau to eight months and increasing the ramp-down by three months to 31 months (for a total stress period of 39 months) would increase the expected loss by approximately $11 million for HELOC transactions. On the other hand, reducing the CDR plateau to four months and decreasing the length of the CDR ramp-down to 25 months (for a total stress period of 29 months), and lowering the ultimate prepayment rate to 10% would decrease the expected loss by approximately $12 million for HELOC transactions.

Breaches of Representations and Warranties

As of September 30, 2018, the Company had a net R&W receivable of $13 million from R&W counterparties, compared to a net R&W receivable of $117 million as of December 31, 2017. The decrease was due primarily to cash received in 2018 from a favorable settlement of R&W litigation reached in late December 2017.

Other Structured Finance

The Company had $1.2 billion of net par exposure to financial guaranty triple-X life insurance transactions as of September 30, 2018, of which $85 million in net par was rated BIG. The triple-X life insurance transactions are based on discrete blocks of individual life insurance business. In older vintage triple-X life insurance transactions, which include the BIG-rated transactions, the amounts raised by the sale of the notes insured by the Company were used to capitalize a special purpose vehicle that provides reinsurance to a life insurer or reinsurer. The amounts have been invested since inception in accounts managed by third-party investment managers. In the case of the BIG-rated transactions, material amounts of their assets were invested in U.S. RMBS.

The Company has insured or reinsured $1.2 billion net par of student loan securitizations issued by private issuers that are classified as structured finance. Of this amount, $111 million is rated BIG. In general, the projected losses are due to: (i) the poor credit performance of private student loan collateral and high loss severities, or (ii) high interest rates on auction rate securities with respect to which the auctions have failed.

The Company projected that its total net expected loss across its troubled non-RMBS structured finance exposures as of September 30, 2018 including those mentioned above was $18 million and is primarily attributable to structured student loans. The economic loss development during Third Quarter 2018 was $1 million primarily related to increases in LAE. The economic benefit during Nine Months 2018 was $3 million primarily attributable to the commutation of certain assumed student loan transactions.

Recovery Litigation

In the ordinary course of their respective businesses, certain of AGL's subsidiaries assert claims in legal proceedings against third parties to recover losses paid in prior periods or prevent losses in the future.

Public Finance Transactions

The Company has asserted claims in a number of legal proceedings in connection with its exposure to Puerto Rico. See Note 4, Outstanding Exposure, for a discussion of the Company's exposure to Puerto Rico and related recovery litigation being pursued by the Company.

On November 1, 2013, Radian Asset Assurance Inc. (Radian Asset) commenced a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against Madison County, Mississippi (the County) and the Parkway East Public Improvement District (District) to establish its rights under a contribution agreement from the County supporting certain special assessment bonds issued by the District and insured by Radian Asset (now AGC). As of September 30, 2018, $18 million of such bonds were outstanding. The County maintained that its payment obligation is limited to two years of annual debt service, while AGC contended the County’s obligations under the contribution agreement continue so long as the bonds remain outstanding. On April 27, 2016, the district court granted AGC's motion for summary judgment, agreeing with AGC's interpretation of the County's obligations. The County appealed the district court’s summary judgment ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and on May 31, 2017, the appellate court reversed the district court’s ruling and remanded the matter to the district court. In March 2018, the County, the District, and AGC executed a settlement agreement which formalizes the procedures related to the disposition of assessments and of the properties that have defaulted, and on May 11, 2018, the district court dismissed the case. The settlement agreement also provides for the County owned property to be conveyed to the District, which, to the extent practicable, is obligated to lease, sell or otherwise dispose of the property to maximize pledged revenues. Any such actions will require AGC’s consent.

RMBS Transactions

On November 26, 2012, CIFG Assurance North America Inc. (CIFGNA) filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against JP Morgan Securities LLC (JP Morgan) for material misrepresentation in the inducement of insurance and common law fraud, alleging that JP Morgan fraudulently induced CIFGNA to insure $400 million of securities issued by ACA ABS CDO 2006-2 Ltd. and $325 million of securities issued by Libertas Preferred Funding II, Ltd. On June 26, 2015, the court dismissed with prejudice CIFGNA’s material misrepresentation in the inducement of insurance claim and dismissed without prejudice CIFGNA’s common law fraud claim. On September 24, 2015, the court denied CIFGNA’s motion to amend but allowed CIFGNA to re-plead a cause of action for common law fraud. On November 20, 2015, CIFGNA filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint to re-plead common law fraud. On April 29, 2016, CIFGNA filed an appeal to reverse the court’s decision dismissing CIFGNA’s material misrepresentation in the inducement of insurance claim. On November 29, 2016, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled that the court’s decision dismissing with prejudice CIFGNA’s material misrepresentation in the inducement of insurance claim should be modified to grant CIFGNA leave to re-plead such claim. On February 27, 2017, AGC (as successor to CIFGNA) filed an amended complaint which includes a claim for material misrepresentation in the inducement of insurance.