Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements

White Mountains adopted Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2010-06, Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements (included in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820-10), effective March 31, 2010. The ASU clarifies existing disclosure requirements for fair value measurements and requires the disclosure of the amounts and nature of transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 measurements; purchase, sale, issuance and settlement activity for Level 3 measurements presented on a gross rather than a net basis; fair value measurements by Level presented on a more disaggregated basis, by asset or liability class; and more detailed disclosures about inputs and valuation techniques for Level 2 and Level 3 measurements for interim and annual reporting periods. White Mountains has expanded its fair value disclosures to meet the requirements of the ASU effective for the period ended March 31, 2010 (see Note 5).

Transfers of Financial Assets and Amendments to FIN 46R

On June 12, 2009, the FASB issued ASU 2009-16, Accounting for Transfers of Financial Assets, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 140 (included in ASC 860) and ASU 2009-17, Amendments to FIN46(R) (included in ASC 810).  Both ASU 2009-16 and ASU 2009-17 became effective as of the beginning of the first annual reporting period that began after November 15, 2009. White Mountains adopted the new guidance on January 1, 2010.

ASU 2009-16 eliminates the concept of a qualifying special-purpose entity (“QSPE”).  Under the new guidance, the appropriateness of de-recognition of assets held by an entity formerly considered a QSPE is evaluated based on whether or not the transferor has surrendered control of the transferred assets. The evaluation must consider any continuing involvement by the transferor. White Mountains did not have any entities that were considered a QSPE under guidance prior to the amendments to ASC 860 and there was no effect resulting from adoption.

ASU 2009-17 amends ASC 810-10 to clarify the application of consolidation accounting for entities for which the controlling financial interest might not be solely indentified through voting rights.  Under the new guidance a variable interest represents a controlling financial interest in a variable interest entity (“VIE”) when it has both of the following: (1) the power to direct the activities of a variable interest entity that most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance and (2) the obligation to absorb losses of the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE or the right to receive benefits from the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE.  A reporting entity must assess whether it has an implicit financial responsibility to ensure that a VIE operates as designed when determining if it has the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly affect the entity’s economic performance. ASC 810-10 as amended requires ongoing reassessments of whether a reporting entity is the primary beneficiary of a VIE.

Upon adoption, White Mountains determined that its ownership interest in Tuckerman Fund II did not meet the criteria for consolidation under the revised guidance for variable interest entities and, accordingly, effective January 1, 2010, White Mountains deconsolidated its investment in Tuckerman Fund II. Upon deconsolidation, White Mountains made the fair value election for its investment in Tuckerman Fund II and recognized an adjustment to decrease opening retained earnings by $0.4 million.

Goodwill Impairment

On September 15, 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-08, Testing Goodwill for Impairment (ASC 350). The ASU amends the guidance that requires an entity to test goodwill for impairment on at least an annual basis using a two-step quantitative test. The new guidance permits an entity to first assess facts and circumstances to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If the entity determines on the basis of this assessment that it is not more likely than not that the fair value of the reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then performance of the two-step quantitative test is not required. ASU 2011-08 is effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. Early adoption is permitted. White Mountains expects that adoption will have no material effect upon its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Comprehensive Income

On June 16, 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-05, Presentation of Comprehensive Income (ASC 220). The ASU requires presentation of the components of net income, the total of other comprehensive income and total comprehensive income to be presented on a single statement. The option of presenting other comprehensive income in the statement of changes in equity has been eliminated by the ASU. ASU 2011-05 is effective for fiscal years and interim periods within those fiscal years ending after December 15, 2011. White Mountains already presents comprehensive income in accordance with the requirements of the ASU, so there will be no effect upon adoption.

Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures

On May 12, 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS (ASC 820). The ASU clarifies existing guidance with respect to the concepts of highest and best use and valuation premise and measuring instruments classified within a reporting entity’s shareholders’ equity.  The ASU also clarifies disclosure requirements, requiring disclosure of quantitative information about unobservable inputs used in Level 3 fair value measurements. The ASU also amends existing guidance. In circumstances where a reporting entity manages a portfolio of financial assets and liabilities based on the net market and counterparty credit risk exposures, the ASU permits determination of the fair value of those instruments to be based on the net risk exposure. In addition, the ASU permits the application of premiums or discounts to be applied in a fair value measurement to the extent that market participants would consider them in valuing the financial instruments. The ASU also expands the required disclosures for Level 3 measurements, requiring that reporting entities provide a narrative description of the sensitivity of Level 3 fair value measurements to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those inputs, if any.  ASU 2011-04 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. White Mountains is currently evaluating the effect the adoption of ASU 2011-04 will have on its financial position and results of operations.

Policy Acquisition Costs

On October 13, 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-26, Accounting for Costs Associated with Acquiring or Renewing Insurance Contracts (ASC 944). The new standard changes the types of policy acquisition costs that are eligible for deferral. Specifically, the new guidance limits deferrable costs to those that are incremental direct costs of contract acquisition and certain costs related to acquisition activities performed by the insurer, such as underwriting, policy issuance and processing, medical and inspection costs and sales force contract selling. The ASU defines incremental direct costs as those costs that result directly from and were essential to the contract acquisition and would not have been incurred absent the acquisition. Accordingly, under the new guidance, deferrable acquisition costs are limited to costs related to successful contract acquisitions. Acquisition costs that are not eligible for deferral are to be charged to expense in the period incurred.

ASU 2010-26 is effective for interim periods and annual fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and may be applied prospectively or retrospectively.  White Mountains expects that adoption will not have a material effect upon its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.