Expected Loss to be Paid

Management compiles and analyzes loss information for all exposures on a consistent basis, in order to effectively evaluate and manage the economics and liquidity of the entire insured portfolio. The Company monitors and assigns ratings and calculates expected losses in the same manner for all its exposures regardless of form or differing accounting models. This note provides information regarding expected claim payments to be made under all contracts in the insured portfolio.

Expected loss to be paid is important from a liquidity perspective in that it represents the present value of amounts that the Company expects to pay or recover in future periods for all contracts. The expected loss to be paid is equal to the present value of expected future cash outflows for claim and LAE payments, net of inflows for expected salvage and subrogation (e.g., excess spread on the underlying collateral, and estimated recoveries, including those for breaches of representations and warranties (R&W)), using current risk-free rates. Expected cash outflows and inflows are probability weighted cash flows that reflect management's assumptions about the likelihood of all possible outcomes based on all information available to it. Those assumptions consider the relevant facts and circumstances and are consistent with the information tracked and monitored through the Company's risk-management activities. The Company updates the discount rates each quarter and reflects the effect of such changes in economic loss development. Net expected loss to be paid is defined as expected loss to be paid, net of amounts ceded to reinsurers.

In circumstances where the Company has purchased its own insured obligations that have expected losses, expected loss to be paid is reduced by the proportionate share of the insured obligation that is held in the investment portfolio. The difference between the purchase price of the obligation and the fair value excluding the value of the Company's insurance is treated as a paid loss. Assets that are purchased by the Company are recorded in the investment portfolio, at fair value excluding the value of the Company's insurance. Additionally, in certain cases, issuers of insured obligations elected, or the Company and an issuer mutually agreed as part of a negotiation, to deliver the underlying collateral or insured obligation to the Company. See Note 10, Investments and Cash and Note 7, Fair Value Measurement.

Economic loss development represents the change in net expected loss to be paid attributable to the effects of changes in assumptions based on observed market trends, changes in discount rates, accretion of discount and the economic effects of loss mitigation efforts.

The insured portfolio includes policies accounted for under three separate accounting models depending on the characteristics of the contract and the Company's control rights. The three models are: (1) insurance as described in "Financial Guaranty Insurance Losses" in Note 6, Contracts Accounted for as Insurance, (2) derivative as described in Note 7, Fair Value Measurement and Note 8, Contracts Accounted for as Credit Derivatives, and (3) VIE consolidation as described in Note 9, Consolidated Variable Interest Entities. The Company has paid and expects to pay future losses (net of recoveries) on policies which fall under each of the three accounting models.

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.

Changes over a reporting period in the Company’s loss estimates for municipal obligations supported by specified revenue streams, such as revenue bonds issued by toll road authorities, municipal utilities or airport authorities, generally will be influenced by factors impacting their revenue levels, such as changes in demand; changing demographics; and other economic factors, especially if the obligations do not benefit from financial support from other tax revenues or governmental authorities. Changes over a reporting period in the Company’s loss estimates for its tax-supported public finance transactions generally will be influenced by factors impacting the public issuer’s ability and willingness to pay, such as changes in the economy and population of the relevant area; changes in the issuer’s ability or willingness to raise taxes, decrease spending or receive federal assistance; new legislation; rating agency actions that affect the issuer’s ability to refinance maturing obligations or issue new debt at a reasonable cost; changes in the priority or amount of pensions and other obligations owed to workers; developments in restructuring or settlement negotiations; and other political and economic factors. Changes in loss estimates may also be affected by the Company's loss mitigation efforts.

Changes in the Company’s loss estimates for structured finance transactions generally will be influenced by factors impacting the performance of the assets supporting those transactions. For example, changes over a reporting period in the Company’s loss estimates for its RMBS transactions may be influenced by such factors as the level and timing of loan defaults experienced; changes in housing prices; results from the Company's loss mitigation activities; and other variables.

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.

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 2.78% with a weighted average of 2.38% as of December 31, 2017 and 0.0% to 3.23% with a weighted average of 2.73% as of December 31, 2016. Expected losses to be paid for transactions denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar represented approximately 3.7% and 2.8% of the total as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

Net Expected Loss to be Paid

Roll Forward



	Year Ended December 31,
	2017			2016
	(in millions)
Net expected loss to be paid, beginning of period	$	1,198		$	1,391
Net expected loss to be paid on the MBIA UK portfolio as of January 10, 2017	21			—
Net expected loss to be paid on the CIFG portfolio as of July 1, 2016	—			22
Economic loss development (benefit) due to:
Accretion of discount	33			26
Changes in discount rates	25			(15		)
Changes in timing and assumptions	255			128
Total economic loss development (benefit)	313			139
Net (paid) recovered losses	(229		)	(354		)
Net expected loss to be paid, end of period	$	1,303		$	1,198

Net Expected Loss to be Paid

Roll Forward by Sector

Year Ended December 31, 2017



	Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of December 31, 2016 (2)		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 December 31, 2017 (2)
	(in millions)
Public finance:
U.S. public finance	$	871	$	—	$	554		$	(268	)	$	1,157
Non-U.S. public finance	33		13		(5		)	5			46
Public finance	904		13		549			(263		)	1,203
Structured finance:
U.S. RMBS	206		—		(181		)	48			73
Other structured finance	88		8		(55		)	(14		)	27
Structured finance	294		8		(236		)	34			100
Total	$	1,198	$	21	$	313		$	(229	)	$	1,303

Net Expected Loss to be Paid

Roll Forward by Sector

Year Ended December 31, 2016



	Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of December 31, 2015		Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) on CIFG as of July 1, 2016			Economic Loss Development / (Benefit)			(Paid) Recovered Losses (1)			Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of December 31, 2016 (2)
	(in millions)
Public finance:
U.S. public finance	$	771	$	40		$	276		$	(216	)	$	871
Non-U.S. public finance	38		2			(7		)	—			33
Public finance	809		42			269			(216		)	904
Structured finance:
U.S. RMBS	409		(22		)	(91		)	(90		)	206
Other structured finance	173		2			(39		)	(48		)	88
Structured finance	582		(20		)	(130		)	(138		)	294
Total	$	1,391	$	22		$	139		$	(354	)	$	1,198

____________________


(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 $24 million and $16 million in LAE for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.


(2)	Includes expected LAE to be paid of $23 million as of December 31, 2017 and $12 million as of December 31, 2016.

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 December 31, 2017			As of December 31, 2016		Year Ended December 31, 2017			Year Ended December 31, 2016
	(in millions)
Financial guaranty insurance	$	1,226		$	1,083	$	353		$	164
FG VIEs (1) and other	91			105		(6		)	(8		)
Credit derivatives (2)	(14		)	10		(34		)	(17		)
Total	$	1,303		$	1,198	$	313		$	139

____________________

(1) See Note 9, Consolidated Variable Interest Entities.

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

Selected U.S. Public Finance Transactions

The Company insures general obligation bonds of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and various obligations of its related authorities and public corporations aggregating $5.0 billion net par as of December 31, 2017, all of which are 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 December 31, 2017, the Company has insured $341 million net par outstanding of general obligation bonds issued by the City of Hartford, Connecticut, which has recently experienced financial distress. The Company rates $339 million net par of that BIG, with the remainder being a second-to-pay policy rated investment grade. The mayor of Hartford announced that the city would be unable to meet its financial obligations by early November 2017 if the State of Connecticut failed to enact a budget, and hired bankruptcy consultants. On October 31, 2017, the State adopted a budget providing for substantial payments to the City, placing the City under State oversight and providing an avenue for the City to issue debt backed by the State. While these are welcome developments, the City remains in financial distress and its bonds are still rated BIG by the Company.

The Company has approximately $19 million of net par exposure as of December 31, 2017 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. On May 31, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court ruling favorable to the Company in its declaratory judgment action disputing the County’s interpretation. See “Recovery Litigation” below.

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 December 31, 2017, the Company’s net par subject to the plan consists of $113 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 projects that its total net expected loss across its troubled U.S. public finance exposures as of December 31, 2017, including those mentioned above, will be $1,157 million, compared with a net expected loss of $871 million as of December 31, 2016. Economic loss development in 2017 was $554 million, which was primarily attributable to Puerto Rico exposures.

Selected Non - U.S. Public Finance Transactions

The Company insures and reinsures exposures 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 $461 million and $74 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's Hungary exposure is to infrastructure bonds dependent on payments from Hungarian governmental entities. The Company's exposure, net of reinsurance, to these Hungarian exposures is $218 million, all of which is rated BIG.

As part of the MBIA UK Acquisition, the Company now also insures an obligation backed by the availability and toll revenues of a major arterial road into a city in the U.K. with $222 million of net par outstanding as of December 31, 2017. This transaction has been underperforming due to lower traffic volume and higher costs compared with expectations at underwriting.

These transactions, together with other non-U.S. public finance insured obligations, had expected loss to be paid of $46 million as of December 31, 2017, compared with $33 million as of December 31, 2016. The MBIA UK Acquisition added $13 million of net expected loss as of January 2017. The economic benefit of approximately $5 million during 2017 was due mainly to the improved internal outlook of certain European sovereigns and sub-sovereign entities.

U.S. RMBS

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 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.

The further behind a mortgage borrower falls in making payments, the more likely it is that he or she will default. The rate at which borrowers from a particular delinquency category (number of monthly payments behind) eventually default is referred to as the “liquidation rate.” The Company derives its liquidation rate assumptions from observed roll rates, which are the rates at which loans progress from one delinquency category to the next and eventually to default and liquidation. The Company applies liquidation rates to the mortgage loan collateral in each delinquency category and makes certain timing assumptions to project near-term mortgage collateral defaults from loans that are currently delinquent.

Mortgage borrowers that are not more than one payment behind (generally considered performing borrowers) have demonstrated an ability and willingness to pay throughout the recession and mortgage crisis, and as a result are viewed as less likely to default than delinquent borrowers. Performing borrowers that eventually default will also need to progress through delinquency categories before any defaults occur. The Company projects how many of the currently performing loans will default and when they will default, by first converting the projected near term defaults of delinquent borrowers derived from liquidation rates into a vector of conditional default rates (CDR), then projecting how the CDR will develop over time. Loans that are defaulted pursuant to the CDR after the near-term liquidation of currently delinquent loans represent defaults of currently performing loans and projected re-performing loans. A CDR is the outstanding principal amount of defaulted loans liquidated in the current month divided by the remaining outstanding amount of the whole pool of loans (or “collateral pool balance”). The collateral pool balance decreases over time as a result of scheduled principal payments, partial and whole principal prepayments, and defaults.

In order to derive collateral pool losses from the collateral pool defaults it has projected, the Company applies a loss severity. The loss severity is the amount of loss the transaction experiences on a defaulted loan after the application of net proceeds from the disposal of the underlying property. The Company projects loss severities by sector and vintage based on its experience to date. The Company continues to update its evaluation of these loss severities as new information becomes available.

The Company had been enforcing claims for breaches of R&W regarding the characteristics of the loans included in the collateral pools. The Company calculates R&W recoveries and payables to include in its cash flow projections based on its agreements with R&W providers.

The Company projects the overall future cash flow from a collateral pool by adjusting the payment stream from the principal and interest contractually due on the underlying mortgages for the collateral losses it projects as described above; assumed voluntary prepayments; and servicer advances. The Company then applies an individual model of the structure of the transaction to the projected future cash flow from that transaction’s collateral pool to project the Company’s future claims and claim reimbursements for that individual transaction. Finally, the projected claims and reimbursements are discounted using risk-free rates. The Company runs several sets of assumptions regarding mortgage collateral performance, or scenarios, and probability weights them.

The Company's RMBS loss projection methodology assumes that the housing and mortgage markets will continue improving. Each period the Company makes a judgment as to whether to change the assumptions it uses to make RMBS loss projections based on its observation during the period of the performance of its insured transactions (including early stage delinquencies, late stage delinquencies and loss severity) as well as the residential property market and economy in general, and, to the extent it observes changes, it makes a judgment as whether those changes are normal fluctuations or part of a trend.

U.S. RMBS Loss Projections

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. In 2017 the economic loss development was $1 million for first lien U.S. RMBS and the economic benefit was $182 million for second lien U.S. RMBS. In 2016 the economic benefit was $68 million for first lien U.S. RMBS and $23 million for second lien U.S. RMBS.

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



	December 31, 2017	December 31, 2016	December 31, 2015
Delinquent/Modified in the Previous 12 Months
Alt A and Prime	20%	25%	25%
Option ARM	20	25	25
Subprime	20	25	25
30 – 59 Days Delinquent
Alt A and Prime	30	35	35
Option ARM	35	35	40
Subprime	40	40	45
60 – 89 Days Delinquent
Alt A and Prime	40	45	45
Option ARM	50	50	50
Subprime	50	50	55
90+ Days Delinquent
Alt A and Prime	55	55	55
Option ARM	60	55	60
Subprime	55	55	60
Bankruptcy
Alt A and Prime	45	45	45
Option ARM	50	50	50
Subprime	40	40	40
Foreclosure
Alt A and Prime	65	65	65
Option ARM	70	65	70
Subprime	65	65	70
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 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 5.5 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 have reached historically high levels, and the Company is assuming in the base case that these high 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 direct vintage 2004 - 2008 first lien U.S. RMBS.

Key Assumptions in Base Case Expected Loss Estimates

First Lien RMBS



	As of December 31, 2017					As of December 31, 2016					As of December 31, 2015
	Range				Weighted Average	Range				Weighted Average	Range				Weighted Average
Alt-A First Lien
Plateau CDR	1.3	%	–	9.8%	5.2%	1.0	%	–	13.5%	5.7%	1.7	%	–	26.4%	6.4%
Final CDR	0.1	%	–	0.5%	0.3%	0.0	%	–	0.7%	0.3%	0.1	%	–	1.3%	0.3%
Initial loss severity:
2005 and prior	60%					60%					60%
2006	80%					80%					70%
2007+	70%					70%					65%
Option ARM
Plateau CDR	2.5	%	–	7.0%	5.9%	3.2	%	–	7.0%	5.6%	3.5	%	–	10.3%	7.8%
Final CDR	0.1	%	–	0.3%	0.3%	0.2	%	–	0.3%	0.3%	0.2	%	–	0.5%	0.4%
Initial loss severity:
2005 and prior	60%					60%					60%
2006	70%					70%					70%
2007+	75%					75%					65%
Subprime
Plateau CDR	3.5	%	–	13.1%	7.8%	2.8	%	–	14.1%	8.1%	4.7	%	–	13.2%	9.5%
Final CDR	0.2	%	–	0.7%	0.4%	0.1	%	–	0.7%	0.4%	0.2	%	–	0.7%	0.4%
Initial loss severity:
2005 and prior	80%					80%					75%
2006	90%					90%					90%
2007+	95%					90%					90%

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 December 31, 2016.

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 December 31, 2017.

Total expected loss to be paid on all first lien U.S. RMBS was $123 million and $119 million as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. The Company used a similar approach to establish its pessimistic and optimistic scenarios as of December 31, 2017 as it used as of December 31, 2016, 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 $71 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 $51 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 data and 28 months of decrease to the steady state CDR, the same as of December 31, 2016.

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.

Most of the HELOC loans underlying the Company's insured HELOC transactions are now past their interest only reset date, although a significant number of HELOC loans were modified to extend the 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 third quarter 2017, the Company applied a CDR floor of 2.5% for the future steady state CDR on all its HELOC transactions and reduced the liquidation rate assumption for selected delinquency categories.

When a second lien loan defaults, there is generally a very low recovery. The Company assumed as of December 31, 2017 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 December 31, 2016.

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 December 31, 2016. 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 possible CDR curves applicable to the period preceding the return to the long-term steady state CDR. The Company used five scenarios at December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. 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 recovery on all second lien U.S. RMBS was $50 million as of December 31, 2017 and total expected loss to be paid on all second lien U.S. RMBS was $87 million as of December 31, 2016, respectively.

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 direct vintage 2004 - 2008 HELOCs.

Key Assumptions in Base Case Expected Loss Estimates

HELOCs



	As of December 31, 2017					As of December 31, 2016					As of December 31, 2015
	Range				Weighted Average	Range				Weighted Average	Range				Weighted Average
Plateau CDR	2.7	%	–	19.9%	11.4%	3.5	%	–	24.8%	13.6%	4.9	%	–	23.5%	10.3%
Final CDR trended down to	2.5	%	–	3.2%	2.5%	0.5	%	–	3.2%	1.3%	0.5	%	–	3.2%	1.2%
Liquidation rates:
Delinquent/Modified in the Previous 12 Months	20%					25%					25%
30 – 59 Days Delinquent	45					50					50
60 – 89 Days Delinquent	60					65					65
90+ Days Delinquent	75					80					75
Bankruptcy	55					55					55
Foreclosure	70					75					75
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 $12 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 $14 million for HELOC transactions.

Breaches of Representations and Warranties

As of December 31, 2017, the Company had a net R&W receivable of $117 million from R&W counterparties, compared to an R&W payable of $6 million as of December 31, 2016. The increase was due primarily to a favorable settlement of R&W litigation. The Company received cash from the settlement in January 2018. See " -- Recovery Litigation -- RMBS Transactions" below.

Other Structured Finance

The Company had $1.2 billion of net par exposure to financial guaranty triple-X life insurance transactions as of December 31, 2017, of which $85 million in net par is 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 $1.4 billion net par of student loan securitizations issued by private issuers that are classified as structured finance. Of this amount, $114 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 projects that its total net expected loss across its troubled non-RMBS structured finance exposures as of December 31, 2017, including those mentioned above, will be $27 million and is primarily attributable to structured student loans. The economic benefit of $55 million was due primarily to a settlement with the former investment manager of the BIG 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 commenced a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against Madison County, Mississippi and the Parkway East Public Improvement 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 December 31, 2017, $19 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 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.

RMBS Transactions

On February 5, 2009, U.S. Bank National Association, as indenture trustee (U.S. Bank), CIFGNA, as insurer of the Class Ac Notes, and Syncora Guarantee Inc. (SGI), as insurer of the Class Ax Notes, filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (GreenPoint) alleging GreenPoint breached its R&W with respect to the underlying mortgage loans in the GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Trust 2006-HE1 transaction. On March 3, 2010, the court dismissed CIFGNA's and SGI’s causes of action on standing grounds. On December 16, 2013, GreenPoint moved to dismiss the remaining claims of U.S. Bank on the grounds that it too lacked standing. U.S. Bank cross-moved for partial summary judgment striking GreenPoint’s defense that U.S. Bank lacked standing to directly pursue claims against GreenPoint. On January 28, 2016, the court denied GreenPoint’s motion for summary judgment and granted U.S. Bank’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment, finding that as a matter of law U.S. Bank has standing to directly assert claims against GreenPoint. On November 28, 2016, GreenPoint filed an appeal. On December 12, 2017, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, ruled that whether U.S. Bank has standing to directly pursue claims against GreenPoint with respect to the underlying mortgage loans in the transaction that are HELOCs (approximately 95% of the underlying mortgage loans) is an issue of fact to be determined at trial and that U.S. Bank lacked standing as a matter of law to directly pursue claims against GreenPoint with respect to the underlying mortgage loans in the transaction that are closed-end seconds (approximately 5% of the underlying mortgage loans). On December 29, 2017, U.S. Bank, AGC (as successor to CIFG), and SGI reached a settlement with GreenPoint. As part of the settlement, on December 31, 2017, GreenPoint made a cash payment to US Bank to be distributed pursuant to the transaction’s waterfall provisions. The distribution of the settlement proceeds resulted in the payment in full of the remaining outstanding balances of the Class Ac and Class Ax Notes and the partial reimbursement of the insurers’ claim payments.

On November 26, 2012, 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.