Fair Value Of Financial Instruments

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Fair Value Of Financial Instruments [Abstract]

Fair Value Of Financial Instruments

Note 7: Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Financial Instruments

The following table presents the carrying value and fair value of financial instruments reported on the Company's consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2011 and 2010:

	As of December 31,
	2011				2010
In millions	Carrying Value		Estimated Fair Value		Carrying Value		Estimated Fair Value
Assets:
Investments held as available-for-sale and held at fair value	$	8,586	$	8,586	$	11,739	$	11,739
Other investments		107		107		188		188
Cash and cash equivalents		473		473		366		366
Receivable for investments sold		32		32		8		8
Non-insured derivatives		2		2		4		4
Assets of consolidated VIEs:
Cash		160		160		764		764
Investments held-to-maturity		3,843		3,489		4,039		3,760
Fixed-maturity securities held as available-for-sale		432		432		339		339
Fixed-maturity securities held as trading		2,884		2,884		5,241		5,241
Loans receivable		2,046		2,046		2,183		2,183
Loan repurchase commitments		1,077		1,077		835		835
Derivative assets		450		450		699		699
Liabilities:
Investment agreements		1,578		1,853		2,005		2,172
Medium-term notes		1,656		1,187		1,740		766
Securities sold under agreements to repurchase		287		286		471		454
Short-term debt		—		—		65		65
Long-term debt		1,840		1,117		1,851		1,155
Payable for investments purchased		3		3		2		2
Derivative liabilities:
Insured derivatives		4,808		4,808		4,375		4,375
Non-insured derivatives		356		356		242		242
Total derivative liabilities		5,164		5,164		4,617		4,617
Warrants		38		38		58		58
Liabilities of consolidated VIEs:
Variable interest entity notes		8,697		8,051		10,590		10,285
Long-term debt		360		368		360		340
Derivative liabilities		825		825		2,104		2,104
Financial Guarantees:
Gross		1,305		1,451		2,743		2,225
Ceded		104		94		112		48

Valuation Techniques

Valuation techniques for financial instruments measured at fair value and included in the preceding table are described below. The Company's assets and liabilities measured at fair value have been categorized according to the fair value hierarchy based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety.

Fixed-Maturity Securities (including short-term investments) Held as Available-For-Sale and Fixed-Maturity Securities Held at Fair Value

U.S. Treasury and government agency—U.S. Treasury securities are valued based on quoted market prices in active markets. The fair value of U.S. Treasuries is based on live trading feeds. U.S. Treasury securities are categorized in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. Government agency securities include debentures and other agency mortgage pass-through certificates as well as to-be-announced ("TBA") securities. TBA securities are liquid and have quoted market prices based on live data feeds. Fair value of mortgage pass-through certificates is obtained via a simulation model, which considers different rate scenarios and historical activity to calculate a spread to the comparable TBA security. Government agency securities generally use market-based and observable inputs. As such, these securities are classified as Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Foreign governments—Foreign government obligations are generally valued based on quoted market prices in active markets, and are categorized in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. When quoted market prices are not available, fair value is determined using a valuation model based on observable inputs including interest rate yield curves, cross-currency basis index spreads, and country credit spreads for structures similar to the financial instrument in terms of issuer, maturity and seniority. These financial instruments are generally categorized in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Bonds that contain significant inputs that are not observable are categorized as Level 3.

Corporate obligations—Corporate obligations are valued using recently executed transaction prices or quoted market prices where observable. When observable price quotations are not available, fair value is determined using a valuation model based on observable inputs including interest rate yield curves, CDS spreads for similar instruments, and diversity scores. Corporate obligations are generally categorized in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy or categorized in Level 3 when significant inputs are unobservable. Corporate obligations are classified as Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy when quoted market prices in an active market for identical financial instruments are available.

Mortgage-backed securities and asset-backed securities—MBS and ABS are valued using recently executed transaction prices. When position-specific quoted prices are not available, MBS and ABS are valued based on quoted prices for similar securities. If quoted prices are not available, MBS and ABS are valued using a valuation model based on observable inputs including interest rate yield curves, spreads, prepayments and volatilities, and categorized in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. MBS and ABS are categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy when significant inputs are unobservable.

State and municipal bonds—State and municipal bonds are valued using recently executed transaction prices, quoted prices or valuation models based on observable inputs including interest rate yield curves, bond or CDS spreads, and volatility. State and municipal bonds are generally categorized in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, or categorized in Level 3 when significant inputs are unobservable.

Investments Held-To-Maturity

The fair values of investments held-to-maturity are determined using recently executed transaction prices or quoted prices when available. When position-specific quoted prices are not available, fair values of investments held-to-maturity are based on quoted prices of similar securities. When quoted prices for similar investments are not available, fair values are based on valuation models using observable inputs including interest rate yield curves, and bond spreads of similar securities.

Other Investments

Other investments include the Company's interest in equity securities. Fair values of other investments are determined by using quoted prices, or valuation models that use market-based and observable inputs. Other investments are categorized in Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

Cash and Cash Equivalents, Receivable for Investments Sold and Payable for Investments Purchased

The carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents, receivable for investments sold and payable for the settlement of derivatives and investments purchased approximates fair values due to the short maturities of these instruments.

Loans Receivable at Fair Value

Loans receivable at fair value comprise loans held by consolidated VIEs consisting of residential mortgage loans, commercial mortgage loans and other whole business loans. Fair values of residential mortgage loans are determined using quoted prices for MBS with similar characteristics and adjusted for the fair values of the financial guarantee obligations provided by MBIA Corp. on the related MBS. Fair values of commercial mortgage loans and other whole business loans are valued based on quoted prices of similar collateralized MBS. Loans receivable at fair value are categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

Loan Repurchase Commitments

Loan repurchase commitments are obligations owed by the sellers/servicers of mortgage loans to either MBIA as reimbursement of paid claims or to the RMBS trusts as defined in the transaction documents. Loan repurchase commitments are consolidated under the amended accounting principles for the consolidation of VIEs. This asset represents the rights of MBIA against the sellers/servicers for representations and warranties that the securitized residential mortgage loans sold to the trust comply with stated underwriting guidelines and for the sellers/servicers to cure, replace, or repurchase mortgage loans that fail to comply. Fair value measurements of loan repurchase commitments represent the amounts owed by the sellers/servicers to either MBIA as reimbursement of paid claims or to the RMBS trusts as defined in the transaction documents. Loan repurchase commitments are not securities and no quoted prices or comparable market transaction information are observable or available. Loan repurchase commitments at fair value are categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Fair values of loan repurchase commitments are determined using discounted cash flow techniques based on observable inputs including:

• estimates of future cash flows for the asset;

• expectations about possible variations in the amount and/or timing of the cash flows representing the uncertainty inherent in the cash flows;

• time value of money, represented by the rate on risk-free monetary assets;

• the price for bearing the uncertainty inherent in the cash flows (risk premium); and

• other case-specific factors that would be considered by market participants.

Refer to the discussion of "Second-lien RMBS Recoveries" within "Note 6: Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Reserves" for a further description of how these estimates of future cash flows for the assets are determined, as well as the additional risk margins and discounts applied.

Investment Agreements

The fair values of investment agreements are determined using discounted cash flow techniques based on observable interest rates currently being offered for similar agreements with comparable maturity dates. Investment agreements contain collateralization and termination agreements that substantially mitigate the nonperformance risk of the Company.

Medium-Term Notes

The fair values of MTNs are determined using discounted cash flow techniques based on inputs including observable interest rates currently being offered for similar notes with comparable maturity dates, and nonperformance risk. Nonperformance risk is determined using the Company's own credit spreads.

The Company has elected to record three MTNs at fair value. Fair values of such notes are determined using quoted market prices or discounted cash flow techniques. Significant inputs into the valuation include yield curves and spreads to the swap curve. As these notes are not actively traded, certain significant inputs (e.g., spreads to the swap curve) are unobservable. MTNs are categorized as Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

Variable Interest Entity Notes

The fair values of VIE notes are determined based on recently executed transaction prices or quoted prices where observable. When position-specific quoted prices are not observable, fair values are based on quoted prices of similar securities. Fair values based on quoted prices of similar securities may be adjusted for factors unique to the securities, including any credit enhancement. When observable quoted prices are not available, fair value is determined based on discounted cash flow techniques of the underlying collateral using observable inputs including interest rate yield curves and bond spreads of similar securities. VIE notes are categorized in Level 2 or Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety.

Securities Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase

The fair values of securities sold under agreements to repurchase are determined using discounted cash flow techniques based on observable inputs including interest rates on similar repurchase agreements. Securities sold under agreements to repurchase include term reverse repurchase agreements that contain credit enhancement provisions including over-collateralization agreements to sufficiently mitigate the nonperformance risk of the Company.

Long-term Debt

Long-term debt consists of notes, debentures, surplus notes and floating rate liquidity loans. The fair value of long-term notes, debentures and surplus notes are estimated based on quoted prices for the identical or similar securities. The fair value for floating rate liquidity loans are determined using discounted cash flow techniques of the underlying collateral pledged to the specific loans, as these loans are non-recourse and fully backed by a pool of underlying assets.

Derivatives—Asset/Liability Products

The asset/liability products business has entered into derivative transactions primarily consisting of interest rate swaps, cross currency swaps, and CDS contracts. Fair values of OTC derivatives are determined using valuation models based on observable inputs, nonperformance risk of the Company's own credit and nonperformance risk of the counterparties. Observable and market-based inputs include interest rate yields, credit spreads and volatilities. These derivatives are categorized in Level 2 or Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety.

The Company has policies and procedures in place regarding counterparties, including review and approval of the counterparty and the Company's exposure limit, collateral posting requirements, collateral monitoring and margin calls on collateral. The Company manages counterparty credit risk on an individual counterparty basis through master netting arrangements covering derivative transactions in the asset/liability products and corporate segments. These agreements allow the Company to contractually net amounts due from a counterparty with those amounts due to such counterparty when certain triggering events occur. The Company only executes swaps under master netting agreements, which typically contain mutual credit downgrade provisions that generally provide the ability to require assignment or termination in the event either the Company or the counterparty is downgraded below a specified credit rating. The netting agreements minimize the potential for losses related to credit exposure and thus serve to mitigate the Company's nonperformance risk under these derivatives.

In certain cases, the Company also manages credit risk through collateral agreements that give the Company the right to hold or the obligation to provide collateral when the current market value of derivative contracts exceeds an exposure threshold. Under these arrangements, the Company may receive or provide U.S. Treasury and other highly rated securities or cash to secure the derivative. The delivery of high-quality collateral can minimize credit exposure and mitigate the potential for nonperformance risk impacting the fair values of the derivatives.

Derivatives—Insurance

The derivative contracts insured by MBIA cannot be legally traded and generally do not have observable market prices. MBIA Corp. determines the fair values of insured credit derivatives using valuation models. These models include the Binomial Expansion Technique ("BET") Model and an internally developed model referred to as the "Direct Price Model." For a limited number of other insured credit derivatives, fair values are determined using a dual-default model. The valuation of insured derivatives includes the impact of its own credit standing. All of these derivatives are categorized as Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy as their fair value is derived using significant unobservable inputs.

Description of MBIA's Insured Derivatives

As of December 31, 2011, the Company had $74.2 billion of gross par outstanding on insured derivatives. The majority of MBIA's insured derivatives are "credit derivatives" that reference structured pools of cash securities and CDS. The Company generally insured the most senior liabilities of such transactions and, at transaction closing, the Company's exposure generally had more subordination than needed to achieve triple-A ratings from credit rating agencies (referred to as "Super Triple-A" exposure). The collateral underlying the Company's insured derivatives consists of cash securities and CDS referencing primarily corporate, asset-backed, residential mortgage-backed, commercial mortgage-backed, CRE loans, and CDO securities. As of December 31, 2011, the gross par outstanding of the Company's insured credit derivatives totaled $67.1 billion. The remaining $7.1 billion of gross par outstanding on insured derivatives as of December 31, 2011 primarily related to insured "interest rate" and "inflation-linked" swaps for which the Company has insured counterparty credit risk.

Most of MBIA's insured CDS contracts require MBIA to make payments for losses of the principal outstanding under the contracts when losses on the underlying referenced collateral exceed a predetermined deductible. MBIA's gross par outstanding and maximum payment obligation under these contracts as of December 31, 2011 was $50.2 billion. The underlying referenced collateral for contracts executed in this manner largely consists of investment grade corporate debt, structured CMBS pools and, to a lesser extent, corporate and multi-sector CDOs. MBIA's multi-sector CDOs are classified into CDOs of high-grade U.S. ABS, including one CDO-squared transaction, and CDOs of mezzanine U.S. ABS. As of December 31, 2011, gross par outstanding on MBIA Corp.-insured CDOs of high-grade U.S. ABS totaled $3.8 billion. The majority of the collateral contained within the Company's ABS multi-sector CDOs comprised RMBS. MBIA also had $16.9 billion of gross par outstanding on insured CDS contracts that require MBIA to make timely interest and ultimate principal payments.

Considerations Regarding an Observable Market for MBIA's Insured Derivatives

Insured derivatives are not transferable, and quoted prices or market transactions are generally not available for identical or similar contracts. While market prices are generally available for traded securities and market standard CDS contracts, MBIA's insured derivatives are unique which make comparisons to market standard CDS contracts unreliable. Market standard CDS contracts are instruments that reference securities, such as corporate bonds, in which quoted prices are observable for the underlying reference obligation. Market standard CDS contracts also include provisions requiring collateral posting, and cash settlement upon default of the underlying reference obligation.

MBIA's insured CDS contracts are designed to replicate the Company's financial guarantee insurance policies, and do not contain typical CDS market standard features for collateral posting or cash settlement upon default of the underlying reference obligation. The Company's insured CDS contracts provide credit protection on collateralized securities or reference portfolios of securities, and benefit from credit enhancement, including a stated deductible or subordination. The Company is not required to post collateral in any circumstance. MBIA payments under an insured derivative contract are due after an aggregate amount of losses are incurred on the underlying reference obligations in excess of the deductible or subordination amounts. Once such losses exceed the deductible or subordination amounts, MBIA is generally obligated to pay the losses, net of recoveries, on any subsequent defaults on the reference obligations. Certain insured CDS contracts also provide for further deferrals of payment at the option of MBIA. In the event of a failure to pay an amount due under the insured CDS by MBIA Corp. or the insolvency of MBIA Corp., the counterparty may terminate the insured CDS and make a claim for the amount due, which would be based on the fair value of the insured CDS at such time. An additional difference between the Company's insured derivatives and typical market standard CDS contracts is that the Company's contract, like its financial guarantee contracts, generally cannot be accelerated by the counterparty in the ordinary course of business but only upon the occurrence of certain events including the failure to pay an amount due under the CDS or the insolvency of the financial guarantee insurer of the CDS, MBIA Insurance Corporation or MBIA UK Insurance Ltd ("MBIA UK"). Similar to the Company's financial guarantee insurance contracts, all insured CDS policies are unconditional and irrevocable obligations of the Company and are not transferable unless the transferees are also licensed to write financial guarantee insurance policies. Since insured CDS contracts are accounted for as derivatives under relevant accounting guidance for derivative instruments and hedging activities, MBIA Corp. did not defer the charges associated with underwriting the CDS policies and they were expensed at origination.

Occasionally, insured CDS contracts are terminated by agreement between MBIA and the counterparty. When these contracts are terminated, any settlement amounts paid are evaluated and considered as a data point in pricing other similar insured derivative contracts whenever possible.

Valuation Models Used

Approximately 76% of the balance sheet fair value of insured credit derivatives as of December 31, 2011 was valued using the BET Model. Approximately 24% of the balance sheet fair value of insured credit derivatives as of December 31, 2011 was valued using the internally developed Direct Price Model. An immaterial amount of insured credit derivatives were valued using other methods, including a dual-default model.

A. Description of the BET Model

1. Valuation Model Overview

The BET Model was originally developed by Moody's to estimate the loss distribution on a diverse pool of assets. The Company has modified this technique in an effort to incorporate more market information and provide more flexibility in handling pools of non- homogeneous assets. The modifications are (a) the Company uses market credit spreads to determine default probability instead of using historical loss experience, and (b) for collateral pools where the spread distribution is characterized by extremes, the Company models each segment of the pool individually instead of using an overall pool average.

The BET Model estimates what a bond insurer would charge to guarantee a transaction at the measurement date, based on the market-implied default risk of the underlying collateral and the remaining structural protection in a deductible or subordination. This approach assumes that bond insurers would be willing to accept these contracts from the Company at a price equal to what the Company could issue them for in the current market. While the premium charged by financial guarantors is not a direct input into the Company's model, the model estimates such premium, and this premium increases as the probability of loss increases, driven by various factors including rising credit spreads, negative credit migration, lower recovery rates, lower diversity score and erosion of deductible or subordination.

Inputs to the process of determining fair value for structured transactions using the BET Model include estimates of collateral loss, allocation of loss to separate tranches of the capital structure, and calculation of the change in value.

• Estimates of aggregated collateral losses are calculated by reference to the following (described in further detail under "BET Model Inputs" below):

• credit spreads of underlying collateral based on actual spreads or spreads on similar collateral with similar ratings, or in some cases is benchmarked; for collateral pools where the spread distribution is characterized by extremes, each segment of the pool is modeled separately instead of using an overall pool average;

• diversity score of the collateral pool as an indication of correlation of collateral defaults; and

• recovery rate for all defaulted collateral.

• Allocation of losses to separate tranches of the capital structure according to priority of payments in a transaction.

• The unrealized gain or loss on a transaction inception to date is the difference between the original price of the risk (the original market-implied expected loss) and the current price of the risk based on the assumed market-implied expected losses derived from the model.

Additional structural assumptions of the BET Model are:

• Default probabilities are determined by three factors: credit spread, recovery rate after default, and the time period under risk.

• Frequencies of defaults are modeled evenly over time.

• Collateral assets are generally considered on an average basis rather than being modeled on an individual basis.

• Collateral asset correlation is modeled using a diversity score which is calculated based on industry or sector concentrations. Recovery rates are based on historical averages and updated based on market evidence.

2. Model Strengths and Weaknesses

The primary strengths of the BET Model:

• The model takes account of transaction structure and key drivers of fair value. Transaction structure includes par insured, weighted average life, level of deductible or subordination (if any), and composition of collateral.

• The model is a consistent approach to marking positions that minimizes the level of subjectivity. The Company has also developed a hierarchy for usage of various market-based spread inputs that reduces the level of subjectivity, especially during periods of high illiquidity.

• The model uses market-based inputs including credit spreads for underlying reference collateral, recovery rates specific to the type and credit rating of reference collateral, diversity score of the entire collateral pool, and MBIA's CDS and derivative recovery rate level.

The primary weaknesses of the BET Model:

• As of December 31, 2011, some of the model inputs were either unobservable or derived from illiquid markets which might adversely impact the model's reliability.

• The BET Model requires an input for collateral spreads. However, some securities are quoted only in price terms. For securities that trade substantially below par, the calculation of spreads from price to spread can be subjective.

• Results may be affected by using average spreads and a single diversity factor, rather than using specific spreads for each piece of underlying collateral and collateral-specific correlations.

3. BET Model Inputs

a. Credit spreads

The average spread of collateral is a key input as the Company assumes credit spreads reflect the market's assessment of default probability for each piece of collateral. Spreads are obtained from market data sources published by third parties (e.g., dealer spread tables for assets most closely resembling collateral within the Company's transactions) as well as collateral-specific spreads on the underlying reference obligations provided by trustees or market sources. Also, when these sources are not available, the Company benchmarks spreads for collateral against market spreads or prices. This data is reviewed on an ongoing basis for reasonableness and applicability to the Company's derivative portfolio. The Company also calculates spreads based on quoted prices and on internal assumptions about expected life, when pricing information is available and spread information is not.

The actual calculation of pool average spread varies depending on whether the Company is able to use collateral-specific credit spreads or generic spreads as an input.

• If collateral-specific spreads are available, the spread for each individual piece of collateral is identified and a weighted average is calculated by weighting each spread by the corresponding par exposure.

• If collateral-specific credit spreads are not available, the Company uses generic spread tables based on asset class and average rating of the collateral pool. Average credit rating for the collateral is calculated from the weighted average rating factor ("WARF") for the collateral portfolio and then mapped to an appropriate spread. WARF is based on a 10,000 point scale designed by Moody's where lower numbers indicate better credit quality. Ratings are not spaced equally on this scale because the marginal difference in default probability at higher rating quality is much less than at lower rating levels. The Company obtains WARF from the most recent trustee's report or the Company calculates it based on the collateral credit ratings. For a WARF calculation, the Company identifies the credit ratings of all collateral (using, in order of preference as available, Moody's, S&P or Fitch ratings), then converts those credit ratings into a rating factor on the WARF scale, averages those factors (weighted by par) to create a portfolio WARF, and then maps the portfolio WARF back into an average credit rating for the pool. The Company then applies this pool rating to a market spread table or index appropriate for the collateral type to determine the generic spread for the pool which becomes the market-implied default input into the BET Model.

• If there is a high dispersion of ratings within a collateral pool, the collateral is segmented into different rating groups and each group is used in calculating the overall average.

• When spreads are not available on either a collateral-specific basis or ratings-based generic basis, MBIA uses its hierarchy of spread sources (discussed below) to identify the most appropriate spread for that asset class to be used in the model.

The Company uses the spread hierarchy listed below in determining which source of spread information to use, with the rule being to use CDS spreads where available and cash security spreads as the next alternative. Cash security spreads reflect trading activity in funded fixed-income instruments while CDS spreads reflect trading levels for non-funded derivative instruments. While both markets are driven partly by an assessment of the credit quality of the referenced security, there are factors which create significant differences. These factors include CDS spreads driven by speculative activity as the CDS market facilitates both long and short positions without ownership of the underlying security, allowing for significant leverage.

Spread Hierarchy:

• Collateral-specific credit spreads when observable.

• Sector-specific spread tables by asset class and rating.

• Corporate spreads, including Bloomberg and Risk Metrics spread tables based on rating.

• Benchmark from most relevant market source when corporate spreads are not directly relevant.

If current market-based spreads are not available, the Company applies either sector-specific spreads from spread tables provided by dealers or corporate spread tables. The sector-specific spread applied depends on the nature of the underlying collateral. Transactions with corporate collateral use the corporate spread table. Transactions with asset-backed collateral use one or more of the dealer asset-backed tables. If there are no observable market spreads for the specific collateral, and sector-specific and corporate spread tables are not appropriate to estimate the spread for a specific type of collateral, the Company uses the fourth alternative in its hierarchy. This includes using tranched corporate collateral, where the Company applies corporate spreads as an input with an adjustment for its tranched exposure.

As of December 31, 2011, sector-specific spreads were used in 7% of the transactions valued using the BET Model. Corporate spreads were used in 51% of the transactions and spreads benchmarked from the most relevant spread source were used for 42% of the transactions. When determining the percentages above, there were some transactions where MBIA incorporated multiple levels within the hierarchy, including using actual collateral-specific credit spreads in combination with a calculated spread based on an assumed relationship. In those cases, MBIA classified the transaction as being benchmarked from the most relevant spread source even though the majority of the average spread was from actual collateral-specific spreads. The spread source can also be identified by whether or not it is based on collateral WARF. No collateral-specific spreads are based on WARF, sector-specific and corporate spreads are based on WARF, and some benchmarked spreads are based on WARF. WARF-sourced and/or ratings-sourced credit spreads were used for 80% of the transactions.

Over time, the data inputs change as new sources become available, existing sources are discontinued or are no longer considered to be reliable or the most appropriate. It is always the Company's objective to move to higher levels on the spread hierarchy table defined above. However, the Company may on occasion move to lower priority inputs due to the discontinuation of data sources or due to the Company considering higher priority inputs no longer representative of market spreads.

b. Diversity Scores

Diversity scores are a means of estimating the diversification in a portfolio. The diversity score estimates the number of uncorrelated assets that are assumed to have the same loss distribution as the actual portfolio of correlated assets. A lower diversity score represents higher assumed correlation, increasing the chances of a large number of defaults, and thereby increasing the risk of loss in the senior tranche. A lower diversity score will generally have a negative impact on the valuation for the Company's senior tranche. The calculation methodology for a diversity score includes the extent to which a portfolio is diversified by industry or asset class, which is either calculated internally or reported by the trustee on a regular basis. Diversity scores are calculated at transaction origination, and adjusted as the collateral pool changes over time. MBIA's internal modeling of the diversity score is based on Moody's methodology.

c. Recovery Rate

The recovery rate represents the percentage of par expected to be recovered after an asset defaults, indicating the severity of a potential loss. MBIA generally uses rating agency recovery assumptions which may be adjusted to account for differences between the characteristics and performance of the collateral used by the rating agencies and the actual collateral in MBIA-insured transactions. The Company may also adjust rating agency assumptions based on the performance of the collateral manager and on empirical market data.

d. Input Adjustments for Insured CMBS Derivatives in the Current Market

Approximately $22.9 billion gross par of MBIA's insured derivative transactions as of December 31, 2011 includes substantial amounts of CMBS and commercial mortgage collateral. Since the CMBX is now quoted in price terms and the BET Model requires a spread input, it is necessary to convert CMBX prices to spreads. Through the third quarter of 2010, the Company assumed that a portion of the CMBX price reflected market illiquidity. The Company assumed this illiquidity component was the difference between par and the price of the highest priced CMBX triple-A series. The Company assumed that the price of each CMBX index has two components: an illiquidity component and a loss component. The market implied losses were assumed to be the difference of par less the liquidity adjusted price. These loss estimates were converted to spreads using an internal estimate of duration. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company determined that it would not be appropriate to continue to use a CMBS illiquidity component in the models due to increased liquidity in the marketplace.

e. Nonperformance Risk

The Company's valuation methodology for insured credit derivative liabilities incorporates the Company's own nonperformance risk. The Company calculates the fair value by discounting the market value loss estimated through the BET Model at discount rates which include MBIA CDS spreads as of December 31, 2011. The CDS spreads assigned to each deal are based on the weighted average life of the deal. The Company limits the nonperformance impact so that the derivative liability could not be lower than the Company's recovery derivative price multiplied by the unadjusted derivative liability.

B. Description of Direct Price Model

1. Valuation Model Overview

The Direct Price Model was developed internally to address weaknesses in the Company's BET Model specific to valuing insured multi-sector CDOs, as previously discussed. There are three significant model inputs used in determining fair value using the Direct Price Model. Significant inputs include market prices obtained or estimated for all collateral within a transaction, the present value of the market-implied potential losses calculated for the transaction, and the impact of nonperformance risk.

2. Model Strengths and Weaknesses

The primary strengths of the Direct Price Model are:

• The model takes account of transaction structure and key drivers of market value. The transaction structure includes par insured, legal final maturity, level of deductible or subordination (if any) and composition of collateral.

• The model is a consistent approach to marking positions that minimizes the level of subjectivity. Model structure, inputs and operation are well documented by MBIA's internal controls, creating a strong controls process in execution of the model.

• The model uses market inputs for each transaction with the most relevant being market prices for collateral, MBIA's CDS and derivative recovery rate level and interest rates. Most of the market inputs are observable.

The primary weaknesses of the Direct Price Model are:

• There is no market in which to test and verify the fair values generated by the Company's model.

• The model does not take into account potential future volatility of collateral prices. When the market value of collateral is substantially lower than insured par and there is no or little subordination left in a transaction, which is the case for most of the transactions marked with this model, the Company believes this assumption still allows a reasonable estimate of fair value.

3. Model Inputs

• Collateral prices

Fair value of collateral is based on quoted prices when available. When quoted prices are not available, a matrix pricing grid is used based on security type and rating to determine fair value of collateral which applies an average based on securities with the same rating and security type categories.

• Interest rates

The present value of the market-implied potential losses was calculated assuming that MBIA deferred all principal losses to the legal final maturity. This was done through a cash flow model that calculated potential interest payments in each period and the potential principal loss at the legal final maturity. These cash flows were discounted using the LIBOR flat swap curve.

• Nonperformance risk

The methodology for calculating MBIA's nonperformance risk is the same as used for the BET Model. Due to the current level of MBIA CDS spread rates and the long tenure of these transactions, the derivative recovery rate was used to estimate nonperformance risk for all transactions marked by this model.

Overall Model Results

As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, the Company's net insured derivative liability was $4.8 billion and $4.4 billion, respectively, and was primarily related to the fair values of insured credit derivatives, based on the results of the aforementioned pricing models. In the current environment, the most significant driver of changes in fair value is nonperformance risk. In aggregate, the nonperformance calculation resulted in a pre-tax net insured derivative liability that was $5.7 billion and $12.1 billion lower than the net liability that would have been estimated if the Company excluded nonperformance risk in its valuation as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Nonperformance risk is a fair value concept and does not contradict the Company's internal view, based on fundamental credit analysis of the Company's economic condition, that the Company will be able to pay all claims when due.

The Company reviews the model results on a quarterly basis to assess the appropriateness of the assumptions and results in light of current market activity and conditions. This review is performed by internal staff with relevant expertise. If live market spreads are observable for similar transactions, those spreads are an integral part of the analysis. For example, new insured transactions that resemble existing (previously insured) transactions are considered, as well as negotiated settlements of existing transactions. MBIA Corp. negotiated settlements of insured CDS transactions in 2010 and 2011. In assessing the reasonableness of the fair value estimate for insured CDS, the Company considered the executed prices for those transactions as well as a review of internal consistency with MBIA's methodology.

Warrants

Stock warrants issued by the Company are recorded at fair value based on a modified Black-Scholes model. Inputs into the warrant valuation include interest rates, stock volatilities and dividend data. As all significant inputs are market-based and observable, warrants are categorized in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Financial Guarantees

Gross Financial Guarantees—The fair value of gross financial guarantees is determined using discounted cash flow techniques based on inputs that include (i) assumptions of expected losses on financial guarantee policies where loss reserves have not been recognized, (ii) amount of losses expected on financial guarantee policies where loss reserves have been established, net of expected recoveries (iii) the cost of capital reserves required to support the financial guarantee liability, (iv) operating expenses, and (v) discount rates. The MBIA Corp. CDS spread and recovery rate are used as the discount rate for MBIA Corp., while the Assured Guaranty Corp. CDS spread and recovery rate are used as the discount rate for National. Discount rates are adjusted to reflect nonperformance risk of the Company.

The carrying value of MBIA's gross financial guarantees consists of unearned premium revenue and loss and LAE reserves, net of the insurance loss recoverable as reported on MBIA's consolidated balance sheets.

Ceded Financial Guarantees—The fair value of ceded financial guarantees is determined by applying the percentage ceded to reinsurers to the related fair value of the gross financial guarantees. The carrying value of ceded financial guarantees consists of prepaid reinsurance premiums and reinsurance recoverable on paid and unpaid losses as reported on MBIA's consolidated balance sheets.

Fair Value Measurements

The following fair value hierarchy tables present information about the Company's assets (including short-term investments) and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2011 and 2010:

	Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
In millions	Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)		Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)		Counterparty and Cash Collateral Netting			Balance as of December 31, 2011
Assets:
Investments:
Fixed-maturity investments:
Taxable bonds:
U.S. Treasury and government agency	$	1,038	$	103	$	—	$	—		$	1,141
Foreign governments		277		62		11		—			350
Corporate obligations		1		1,531		206		—			1,738
Mortgage-backed securities:
Residential mortgage-backed agency		—		1,276		8		—			1,284
Residential mortgage-backed non-agency		—		350		17		—			367
Commercial mortgage-backed		—		34		24		—			58
Asset-backed securities:
Collateralized debt obligations		—		78		60		—			138
Other asset-backed		—		130		318		—			448
State and municipal bonds		—		924		—		—			924
Total taxable bonds		1,316		4,488		644		—			6,448
Tax exempt bonds:
State and municipal bonds		—		1,137		28		—			1,165
Other fixed-maturity investments		—		15		—		—			15
Total fixed-maturity investments		1,316		5,640		672		—			7,628
Money market securities		912		—		—		—			912
Perpetual preferred securities		—		106		1		—			107
Other		25		—		10		—			35
Total		2,253		5,746		683		—			8,682
Derivative assets:
Non-insured derivative assets:
Credit derivatives		—		1		—		—			1
Interest rate derivatives		—		91		3		—			94
Other		—		—		—		(93	)		(93	)
Total derivative assets		—		92		3		(93	)		2

	Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
In millions	Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)		Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)		Counterparty and Cash Collateral Netting			Balance as of December 31, 2011
Assets of consolidated VIEs:
Corporate obligations		—		170		69		—			239
Mortgage-backed securities:
Residential mortgage-backed agency		—		3		—		—			3
Residential mortgage-backed non-agency		—		1,437		21		—			1,458
Commercial mortgage-backed		—		559		22		—			581
Asset-backed securities:
Collateralized debt obligations		—		330		203		—			533
Other asset-backed		—		236		67		—			303
Total fixed maturity securities at fair value		—		2,735		382		—			3,117
Money market securities		199		—		—		—			199
Loans receivable		—		—		2,046		—			2,046
Loan repurchase commitments		—		—		1,077		—			1,077
Derivative assets:
Credit derivatives		—		—		447		—			447
Interest rate derivatives		—		3		—		—			3
Total assets	$	2,452	$	8,576	$	4,638	$	(93	)	$	15,573
Liabilities:
Medium-term notes	$	—	$	—	$	165	$	—		$	165
Derivative liabilities:
Insured derivatives:
Credit derivatives		—		18		4,790		—			4,808
Non-insured derivatives:
Interest rate derivatives		—		445		—		—			445
Currency derivatives		—		4		—		—			4
Other		—		—		—		(93	)		(93	)
Other liabilities:
Warrants		—		38		—		—			38
Liabilities of consolidated VIEs:
Variable interest entity notes		—		1,865		2,889		—			4,754
Derivative liabilities:
Credit derivatives		—		—		527		—			527
Interest rate derivatives		—		281		—		—			281
Currency derivatives		—		—		17		—			17
Total liabilities	$	—	$	2,651	$	8,388	$	(93	)	$	10,946

	Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
In millions	Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)		Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)		Counterparty and Cash Collateral Netting			Balance as of December 31, 2010
Assets:
Investments:
Fixed-maturity investments:
Taxable bonds:
U.S. Treasury and government agency	$	915	$	149	$	—	$	—		$	1,064
Foreign governments		409		49		11		—			469
Corporate obligations		—		2,602		246		—			2,848
Mortgage-backed securities:
Residential mortgage-backed agency		—		1,548		41		—			1,589
Residential mortgage-backed non-agency		—		414		48		—			462
Commercial mortgage-backed		—		120		41		—			161
Asset-backed securities:
Collateralized debt obligations		—		108		191		—			299
Other asset-backed		—		310		350		—			660
State and municipal bonds		—		738		14		—			752
Total taxable bonds		1,324		6,038		942		—			8,304
Tax exempt bonds:
State and municipal bonds		—		2,787		36		—			2,823
Other fixed-maturity investments		13		19		—		—			32
Total fixed-maturity investments		1,337		8,844		978		—			11,159
Money market securities		553		—		—		—			553
Perpetual preferred securities		—		192		—		—			192
Other		16		5		—		—			21
Total		1,906		9,041		978		—			11,925
Derivative assets:
Non-insured derivative assets:
Credit derivatives		—		3		—		—			3
Interest rate derivatives		—		57		5		—			62
Other		—		—		—		(61	)		(61	)
Total derivative assets		—		60		5		(61	)		4

	Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
In millions	Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)		Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)		Counterparty and Cash Collateral Netting			Balance as of December 31, 2010
Assets of consolidated VIEs:
U.S. Treasury and government agency		4		—		—		—			4
Corporate obligations		7		360		82		—			449
Mortgage-backed securities:
Residential mortgage-backed agency		—		37		—		—			37
Residential mortgage-backed non-agency		—		2,706		40		—			2,746
Commercial mortgage-backed		—		907		23		—			930
Asset-backed securities:
Collateralized debt obligations		—		583		245		—			828
Other asset-backed		—		352		81		—			433
State and municipal taxable and tax-exempt bonds		—		4		—		—			4
Total fixed maturity securities at fair value		11		4,949		471		—			5,431
Money market securities		150		—		—		—			150
Loans receivable		—		—		2,183		—			2,183
Loan repurchase commitments		—		—		835		—			835
Derivative assets:
Credit derivatives		—		—		687		—			687
Interest rate derivatives		—		12		—		—			12
Total assets	$	2,067	$	14,062	$	5,159	$	(61	)	$	21,227
Liabilities:
Medium-term notes	$	—	$	—	$	116	$	—		$	116
Derivative liabilities:
Insured derivatives:
Credit derivatives		—		25		4,350		—			4,375
Non-insured derivatives:
Interest rate derivatives		—		297		—		—			297
Currency derivatives		—		6		—		—			6
Other		—		—		—		(61	)		(61	)
Other liabilities:
Warrants		—		58		—		—			58
Liabilities of consolidated VIEs:
Variable interest entity notes		—		2,007		4,673		—			6,680
Derivative liabilities:
Credit derivatives		—		—		1,455		—			1,455
Interest rate derivatives		—		635		—		—			635
Currency derivatives		—		—		14		—			14
Total liabilities	$	—	$	3,028	$	10,608	$	(61	)	$	13,575

Level 3 assets at fair value, as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 represented approximately 30% and 24% of total assets measured at fair value, respectively. Level 3 liabilities at fair value, as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, represented approximately 77% and 78% of total liabilities measured at fair value as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The following tables present information about changes in Level 3 assets (including short-term investments) and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010:

Changes in Level 3 Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis for the Year Ended December 31, 2011

In millions	Balance, Beginning of Year		Realized Gains / (Losses)			Unrealized Gains / (Losses) Included in Earnings			Unrealized Gains / (Losses) Included in OCI			Foreign Exchange Recognized in OCI or Earnings			Purchases		Issuances		Settlements			Sales			Transfers into Level 3 (1)		Transfers out of Level 3 (1)			Ending Balance		Change in Unrealized Gains (Losses) for the Period  Included in Earnings for Assets still held as of December 31, 2011
Assets:
Foreign governments	$	11	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	(7	)	$	13	$	—	$	(5	)	$	(1	)	$	7	$	(7	)	$	11	$	—
Corporate obligations		246		(4	)		—			(8	)		7			20		—		(127	)		(62	)		166		(32	)		206		—
Residential mortgage-backed agency		41		—			—			1			—			2		—		(1	)		(2	)		8		(41	)		8		—
Residential mortgage-backed non-agency		48		(2	)		—			10			2			12		—		(22	)		(18	)		10		(23	)		17		—
Commercial mortgage-backed		41		(2	)		—			—			1			9		—		(3	)		(21	)		—		(1	)		24		—
Collateralized debt obligations		191		(4	)		—			25			2			6		3		(121	)		4			50		(96	)		60		—
Other asset-backed		350		—			—			(30	)		—			9		—		(22	)		(2	)		78		(65	)		318		—
State and municipal taxable bonds		14		1			—			—			—			—		—		(15	)		—			—		—			—		—
State and municipal tax-exempt bonds		36		—			—			—			—			2		—		(9	)		(1	)		—		—			28		—
Perpetual preferred securities		—		—			—			—			—			—		—		—			—			1		—			1		—
Other investments		—		—			—			—			—			10		—		—			—			—		—			10		—
Assets of consolidated VIEs:
Corporate obligations		82		—			(17	)		—			—			—		—		(6	)		—			17		(7	)		69		(2	)
Residential mortgage-backed non-agency		40		—			(3	)		3			—			—		—		(6	)		(6	)		13		(20	)		21		—
Commercial mortgage-backed		23		—			9			—			—			—		—		(2	)		(13	)		7		(2	)		22		3
Collateralized debt obligations		245		—			(25	)		(7	)		—			60		—		(7	)		(39	)		71		(95	)		203		5
Other asset-backed		81		—			(10	)		—			—			—		—		(2	)		(19	)		19		(2	)		67		(4	)
Loans receivable		2,183		—			132			—			—			24		—		(291	)		(2	)		—		—			2,046		132
Loan repurchase commitments		835		—			230			—			—			—		12		—			—			—		—			1,077		230
Total assets	$	4,467	$	(11	)	$	316		$	(6	)	$	5		$	167	$	15	$	(639	)	$	(182	)	$	447	$	(391	)	$	4,188	$	364

In millions	Balance, Beginning of Year		Realized (Gains) / Losses		Unrealized (Gains) / Losses Included in Earnings		Unrealized (Gains) / Losses Included in OCI		Foreign Exchange Recognized in OCI or Earnings		Purchases		Issuances		Settlements		Sales		Transfers into Level 3 (1)		Transfers out of Level 3 (1)		Ending Balance		Change in Unrealized (Gains) Losses for the Period Included in Earnings for Liabilities still held as of December 31, 2011
Liabilities:
Medium-term notes	$	116	$	—	$	78	$	—	$	(4)	$	—	$	—	$	(25)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	165	$	78
Credit derivatives, net		4,350		2,477		440		—		—		(8)		—		(2,477)		—		8		—		4,790		2,702
Interest rate derivatives, net		(5)		—		1		—		—		—		—		—		—		1		—		(3)		12
Liabilities of consolidated VIEs:
VIE notes		4,673		—		94		—		—		—		—		(554)		(1,324)		—		—		2,889		94
Credit derivatives, net		768		—		(11)		—		—		—		—		—		(677)		—		—		80		(80)
Currency derivatives, net		14		—		3		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		17		3
Total liabilities	$	9,916	$	2,477	$	605	$	—	$	(4)	$	(8)	$	—	$	(3,056)	$	(2,001)	$	9	$	—	$	7,938	$	2,809

(1) Transferred in and out at the end of the period.

Changes in Level 3 Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis for the Year Ended December 31, 2010

In millions	Balance, Beginning of Year		Realized Gains / (Losses)		Unrealized Gains / (Losses) Included in Earnings		Unrealized Gains / (Losses) Included in OCI		Foreign Exchange Recognized in OCI or Earnings		Purchases, Issuances and Settlements, net		Transfers into Level 3 (1)		Transfers out of Level 3 (1)		Ending Balance		Change in Unrealized Gains (Losses) for the Period Included in Earnings for Assets still held as of December 31, 2010
Assets:
U.S. Treasury and government agency	$	6	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	21	$	—	$	(27)	$	—	$	—
Foreign governments		12		—		—		—		1		5		—		(7)		11		—
Corporate obligations		358		(1)		—		54		(2)		(158)		81		(86)		246		—
Residential mortgage-backed agency		48		—		—		3		—		(6)		41		(45)		41		—
Residential mortgage-backed non-agency		64		(3)		—		38		—		(22)		53		(82)		48		—
Commercial mortgage-backed		43		—		—		3		(1)		(4)		2		(2)		41		—
Collateralized debt obligations		245		(14)		—		74		—		(100)		142		(156)		191		—
Other asset—backed		379		—		—		22		—		(55)		32		(28)		350		—
State and municipal taxable bonds		—		—		—		—		—		14		—		—		14		—
State and municipal tax-exempt bonds		50		—		—		1		—		(15)		—		—		36		—
Other fixed-maturity investments		19		—		—		—		—		(19)		—		—		—		—
Assets of consolidated VIEs:
Corporate obligations		—		—		6		—		—		83		3		(10)		82		(19)
Residential mortgage-backed non-agency		166		(1)		(2)		3		—		(122)		25		(29)		40		4
Commercial mortgage-backed		3		—		19		—		—		23		2		(24)		23		(1)
Collateralized debt obligations		42		—		(71)		—		—		272		9		(7)		245		8
Other asset-backed		193		—		97		—		—		(150)		—		(59)		81		3
Loans receivable		—		—		36		—		21		2,126		—		—		2,183		36
Loan repurchase commitments		—		—		120		—		—		715		—		—		835		120
Total assets	$	1,628	$	(19)	$	205	$	198	$	19	$	2,608	$	390	$	(562)	$	4,467	$	151

In millions	Balance, Beginning of Year			Realized Gains / (Losses)			Unrealized (Gains) / Losses Included in Earnings		Unrealized Gains / (Losses) Included in OCI		Foreign Exchange Recognized in OCI or Earnings			Purchases, Issuances and Settlements, net			Transfers into Level 3 (1)		Transfers out of Level 3 (1)		Ending Balance			Change in Unrealized (Gains) Losses for the Period Included in Earnings for Liabilities still held as of December 31, 2010
Liabilities:
Medium-term notes	$	110		$	—		$	13	$	—	$	(7	)	$	—		$	—	$	—	$	116		$	13
Credit derivatives, net		3,799			282			609		—		—			(340	)		—		—		4,350			1,338
Interest rate derivatives, net		(6	)		(8	)		5		—		4			—			—		—		(5	)		3
Currency derivatives, net		(3	)		—			5		—		(2	)		—			—		—		—			—
Liabilities of consolidated VIEs:
VIE notes		—			—			522		—		39			4,112			—		—		4,673			522
Credit derivatives, net		—			—			23		—		—			745			—		—		768			24
Currency derivatives, net		—			—			—		—		—			14			—		—		14			—
Total liabilities	$	3,900		$	274		$	1,177	$	—	$	34		$	4,531		$	—	$	—	$	9,916		$	1,900

(1)—Transferred in and out at the end of the period.

Transfers into and out of Level 3 were $456 million and $391 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2011. Transfers into and out of Level 2 were $391 million and $456 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2011. These transfers were principally for available-for-sale securities where inputs, which are significant to their valuation, became observable or unobservable during the year. These inputs included spreads, prepayment speeds, default speeds, default severities, yield curves observable at commonly quoted intervals, and market corroborated inputs. Corporate obligations, CDOs and other asset-backed comprised the majority of the transferred instruments. There were no transfers into or out of Level 1. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the net unrealized losses related to the transfers into Level 3 was $2 million and the net unrealized gains related to the transfers out of Level 3 was $32 million.

Transfers into and out of Level 3 were $390 million and $562 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2010. Transfers into and out of Level 2 were $562 million and $390 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2010. These transfers were principally for available-for-sale securities where inputs, which are significant to their valuation, became observable or unobservable during the year. These inputs included spreads, prepayment speeds, default speeds, default severities, yield curves observable at commonly quoted intervals, and market corroborated inputs. CDOs, corporate obligations, RMBS non-agency and other asset-backed comprised the majority of the transferred instruments. There were no transfers into or out of Level 1. For the year ended December 31, 2010, the net unrealized losses related to the transfers into Level 3 was $10 million and the net unrealized gains related to the transfers out of Level 3 was $120 million.

All Level 1, 2 and 3 designations are made at the end of each accounting period.

Gains and losses (realized and unrealized) included in earnings pertaining to Level 3 assets and liabilities for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 are reported on the consolidated statements of operations as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2011
							Consolidated VIEs
In millions	Unrealized Gains (Losses) on Insured Derivatives		Net Realized Gains (Losses)		Net Gains (Losses) on Financial Instruments at Fair Value and Foreign Exchange		Net Realized Gains (Losses)		Net Gains (Losses) on Financial Instruments at Fair Value and Foreign Exchange
Total gains (losses) included in earnings	$	(440)	$	(2,488)	$	(75)	$	—	$	230
Change in unrealized gains (losses) for the period included in earnings for assets and liabilities still held as of December 31, 2011	$	(2,702)	$	—	$	(86)	$	—	$	347

	Year Ended December 31, 2010
							Consolidated VIEs
In millions	Unrealized Gains (Losses) on Insured Derivatives		Net Realized Gains (Losses)		Net Gains (Losses) on Financial Instruments at Fair Value and Foreign Exchange		Net Realized Gains (Losses)		Net Gains (Losses) on Financial Instruments at Fair Value and Foreign Exchange
Total gains (losses) included in earnings	$	(609)	$	(282)	$	(11)	$	—	$	(340)
Change in unrealized gains (losses) for the period included in earnings for assets and liabilities still held as of December 31, 2010	$	(1,338)	$	—	$	(3)	$	—	$	(395)

	Year Ended December 31, 2009
							Consolidated VIEs
In millions	Unrealized Gains (Losses) on Insured Derivatives		Net Realized Gains (Losses)		Net Gains (Losses) on Financial Instruments at Fair Value and Foreign Exchange		Net Realized Gains (Losses)		Net Gains (Losses) on Financial Instruments at Fair Value and Foreign Exchange
Total gains (losses) included in earnings	$	1,380	$	146	$	(11)	$	—	$	—
Change in unrealized gains (losses) for the period included in earnings for assets and liabilities still held as of December 31, 2009	$	1,140	$	—	$	(11)	$	—	$	—

Fair Value Option

The Company elected to record at fair value certain financial instruments of the VIEs that have been consolidated in connection with the adoption of the accounting guidance for consolidation of VIEs, among others.

The following table presents the changes in fair value included in the Company's consolidated statements of operations for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 for all financial instruments for which the fair value option was elected:

	Net Gains (Losses) on Financial Instruments at Fair Value and  Foreign Exchange
In millions	2011			2010
Fixed-maturity securities held at fair value	$	(484	)	$	374
Loans receivable at fair value:
Residential mortgage loans		(143	)		295
Other loans		(19	)		(26	)
Loan repurchase commitments		242			336
Other assets		—			26
Long-term debt		594			(661	)

The following table reflects the difference between the aggregate fair value and the aggregate remaining contractual principal balance outstanding as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 for loans and long-term debt for which the fair value option was elected.

	As of December 31,
	2011						2010
In millions	Contractual Outstanding Principal		Fair Value		Difference		Contractual Outstanding Principal		Fair Value		Difference
Loans receivable at fair value:
Residential mortgage loans	$	2,769	$	1,895	$	874	$	3,334	$	2,014	$	1,320
Residential mortgage loans (90 days or more past due)		259		—		259		243		—		243
Other loans		129		43		86		412		124		288
Other loans (90 days or more past due)		324		108		216		149		45		104
Total loans receivable at fair value	$	3,481	$	2,046	$	1,435	$	4,138	$	2,183	$	1,955
Long-term debt	$	13,583	$	4,754	$	8,829	$	17,217	$	6,680	$	10,537

Substantially all gains and losses included in earnings during the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 on loans receivable and long-term debt reported in the preceding table are attributable to credit risk. This is primarily due to the high rate of defaults on loans and the collateral supporting the long-term debt, resulting in depressed pricing of the financial instruments.