Document

The COVID-19 pandemic had a material impact on our 2020 financial results. While uncertain, the future impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company’s business, financial results, liquidity and/or financial condition may also be material. The magnitude of the impact will be influenced by various factors, including the length and severity of the pandemic in the United States, efforts to reduce the transmission of COVID-19, the level of unemployment, and the impact of government initiatives and actions taken by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the "GSEs") (including mortgage forbearance and modification programs) to mitigate the economic harm caused by COVID-19.

•Our incurred losses will increase if the number of insured mortgages in our delinquency inventory increases. We establish reserves for insurance losses when delinquency notices are received on loans that are two or more payments past due and for loans we estimate are delinquent prior to the close of the accounting period but for which delinquency notices have not yet been reported to us (this is often referred to as “IBNR”). In addition, our current estimates of the number of delinquencies for which we will receive claims, and the amount, or severity, of each claim, may increase.

Losses result from events that reduce a borrower’s ability or willingness to make mortgage payments, such as unemployment, health issues, family status, and whether the home of a borrower who defaults on a mortgage can be sold for an amount that will cover unpaid principal and interest and the expenses of the sale. A deterioration in economic conditions, including an increase in unemployment, generally increases the likelihood that borrowers will not have sufficient income to pay their mortgages and can also adversely affect home prices, which in turn can influence the willingness of borrowers with sufficient resources to make mortgage payments when the mortgage balance exceeds the value of the home. The seasonally-adjusted Purchase-Only U.S. Home Price Index of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (the “FHFA”), which is based on single-family properties whose mortgages have been purchased or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, indicates that home prices increased by 7.7% in the first five months of 2021, after increasing by 11.5%, 5.4%, 5.7% and 6.3% in 2020, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. The price-to-income ratio in some markets exceeds its historical average, in part as a result of recent home price appreciation outpacing increases in income. Home prices may decline even absent a deterioration in economic conditions due to declines in demand for homes, which in turn may result from changes in buyers’ perceptions of the potential for future appreciation, restrictions on and the cost of mortgage credit due to more stringent underwriting standards, higher interest rates, changes to the tax deductibility of mortgage interest, decreases in the rate of household formations, or other factors.

The unemployment rate rose from 3.5% as of December 31, 2019, to 14.7% as of April 30, 2020. It was 5.9% as of June 30, 2021. High levels of unemployment may result in an increasing number of loans in our delinquency inventory and an increasing number of insurance claims; however, the increases are difficult to predict given the uncertainty in the current market environment, including uncertainty about the length and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic; efforts to reduce the transmission of COVID-19; effects of forbearance programs enacted by the GSEs, various states and municipalities; and effects of past and future government stimulus programs.

Forbearance for federally-insured mortgages (including those delivered to or purchased by the GSEs) allows for mortgage payments to be suspended for up to 18 months: an initial forbearance period of up to six months; if requested by the borrower following contact by the servicer, an extension of up to six months; and, for loans in a COVID-19 forbearance plan as of February 28, 2021, an additional extension of up to six months, subject to certain limits. The servicer of the loan must begin attempts to contact the borrower no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of any forbearance plan term and must continue outreach attempts until appropriate contact is made or the forbearance plan term has expired. In certain circumstances, the servicer will be unable to contact the borrower and the forbearance plan will expire after the first 180-day plan. A delinquent loan for which the borrower was unable to be contacted and that is not in a forbearance plan may be more likely to result in a claim than a delinquent loan in a forbearance plan.

Historically, forbearance plans have reduced the incidence of our losses on affected loans. However, given the uncertainty surrounding the long-term economic impact of COVID-19, it is difficult to predict the ultimate effect of COVID-19 related forbearances on our loss incidence. At June 30, 2021, 23,849 of the loans in our delinquency inventory were reported to us as in forbearance. Of the 46,684 loans in our delinquency inventory as of June 30, 2020 that were reported to us as in forbearance, 70.2% are no longer in the default inventory as of June 30, 2021; 22.5% are still in the delinquency inventory and reported to us as in forbearance; and 7.4% are still in the delinquency inventory but no longer reported to us as in forbearance. As of June 30, 2021, 55% of the loans in forbearance have reached the twelve-month anniversary of their forbearance plans,16% have reached the nine-month anniversary of their forbearance plans, and 11% have reached the six-month anniversary of their forbearance plans. Whether a loan delinquency will cure, including through modification, when forbearance ends will depend on the economic circumstances of the borrower at that time. The severity of losses associated with delinquencies that do not cure will depend on economic conditions at that time, including home prices.

Foreclosures on mortgages purchased or securitized by the GSEs have been suspended through July 31, 2021. Under a CFPB rule that is generally effective from August 31, 2021 through December 31, 2021 (from July 31, 2021 for servicers of GSE mortgages), with limited exceptions, servicers must ensure that at least one temporary procedural safeguard has been met before referring 120-day delinquent loans for foreclosure.

We must comply with a GSE's PMIERs to be eligible to insure loans delivered to or purchased by that GSE. The PMIERs include financial requirements, as well as business, quality control and certain transaction approval requirements. The financial requirements of the PMIERs require a mortgage insurer’s “Available Assets” (generally only the most liquid assets of an insurer) to equal or exceed its “Minimum Required Assets” (which are generally based on an insurer’s book of risk in force and calculated from tables of factors with several risk dimensions, reduced for credit given for risk ceded under reinsurance agreements).

Based on our interpretation of the PMIERs, as of June 30, 2021, MGIC’s Available Assets totaled $5.7 billion, or $2.3 billion in excess of its Minimum Required Assets. MGIC is in compliance with the PMIERs and eligible to insure loans purchased by the GSEs. Our "Minimum Required Assets" reflect a credit for risk ceded under our reinsurance transactions, which are discussed in our risk factor titled "The mix of business we write affects our Minimum Required Assets under the PMIERs, our premium yields and the likelihood of losses occurring." The calculated credit for excess of loss reinsurance transactions under PMIERs is generally based on the PMIERs requirement of the covered loans and the attachment and detachment points of the coverage, all of which fluctuate over time. PMIERs credit is generally not given for the reinsured risk above the PMIERs requirement. The GSEs have discretion to further limit reinsurance credit under the PMIERs. The total credit for risk ceded under our reinsurance transactions is subject to a modest reduction and is subject to periodic review by the GSEs. There is a risk we will not receive our current level of credit in future periods for ceded risk. In addition, we may not receive the same level of credit under future reinsurance transactions that we receive under existing transactions. If MGIC is not allowed certain levels of credit under the PMIERs, under certain circumstances, MGIC may terminate the reinsurance transactions without penalty.

The PMIERs generally require us to hold significantly more Minimum Required Assets for delinquent loans than for performing loans and the Minimum Required Assets required to be held increases as the number of payments missed on a delinquent loan increases. For delinquent loans whose initial missed payment occurred on or after March 1, 2020 and prior to April 1, 2021 (the "COVID-19 Crisis Period"), the Minimum Required Assets are generally reduced by 70% for at least three months. The 70% reduction will continue, or be newly applied, for delinquent loans that are subject to a forbearance plan that is granted in response to a financial hardship related to COVID-19, the terms of which are materially consistent with terms of forbearance plans offered by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. Loans considered to be subject to a forbearance plan include those that are in a repayment plan or loan modification trial period following the forbearance plan. As noted above, if a servicer of a loan is unable to contact the borrower prior to the expiration of the first 180-day forbearance plan term, or if the forbearance plan reaches its twelve-month anniversary and is not further extended, the forbearance plan generally will expire. In such case, the 70% reduction in Minimum Required Assets for that loan will no longer be applicable, our Minimum Required Assets will increase and our excess of Available Assets over Minimum Required Assets will decrease. As of June 30, 2021, application of the 70% reduction decreased our Minimum Required Assets from approximately $3.9 billion to approximately $3.4 billion. We do not expect our Minimum Required Assets for the loans in forbearance to increase by the full amount of the reduction upon expiration of the forbearance plans because we expect some loans whose forbearance plans expire to have their delinquencies cured through modification or otherwise.

Despite reducing the Minimum Required Assets for certain delinquent loans by 70%, an increasing number of loan delinquencies caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may cause our Minimum Required Assets to exceed our Available Assets. As of June 30, 2021, there were 42,999 loans in our delinquency inventory, of which 55% were reported to us as being subject to a forbearance plan. We believe substantially all of the reported forbearance plans are COVID-19-related. We are unable to predict the ultimate number of loans that will become delinquent as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

If our Available Assets fall below our Minimum Required Assets, we would not be in compliance with the PMIERs. The PMIERs provide a list of remediation actions for a mortgage insurer's non-compliance, with additional actions possible in the GSEs' discretion. At the extreme, the GSEs may suspend or terminate our eligibility to insure loans purchased by them. Such suspension or termination would significantly reduce the volume of our new insurance written ("NIW"); the substantial majority of which is for loans delivered to or purchased by the GSEs. In addition to the increase in Minimum Required Assets associated with delinquent loans, factors that may negatively impact MGIC’s ability to continue to comply with the financial requirements of the PMIERs include the following:

•The GSEs may make the PMIERs more onerous in the future. The PMIERs provide that the factors that determine Minimum Required Assets will be updated periodically, or as needed if there is a significant change in macroeconomic conditions or loan performance. We do not anticipate that the regular periodic updates will occur more frequently than once every two years. The PMIERs state that the GSEs will provide notice 180 days prior to the effective date of updates to the factors; however, the GSEs may amend the PMIERs at any time, including by imposing restrictions specific to our company.

•There may be future implications for PMIERs as a result of changes to the regulatory capital requirements for the GSEs. In November 2020, the FHFA adopted a rule containing a risk-based capital framework for the GSEs that will increase their capital requirements, including through a decrease in credit received for credit risk transfer "CRT" transactions, effective on the later of (i) the date of termination of the FHFA’s conservatorship of the applicable GSE; (ii) sixty days after publication of the adopted rule in the Federal Register; or (iii) any later compliance date provided in a consent order or other transition order applicable to a GSE. The increase in capital requirements may ultimately result in an increase in the Minimum Required Assets required to be held by mortgage insurers, including through a decrease in credit received for mortgage insurers' reinsurance transactions.

In accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, we establish case reserves for insurance losses and loss adjustment expenses only when delinquency notices are received for insured loans that are two or more payments past due and for loans we estimate are delinquent but for which delinquency notices have not yet been received (this is often referred to as “IBNR”). Losses that may occur from loans that are not delinquent are not reflected in our financial statements, except in the case where a premium deficiency exists. A premium deficiency would be recorded if the present value of expected future losses and expenses exceeds the present value of expected future premiums and already established loss reserves on the applicable loans. As a result, future losses on loans that are not currently delinquent may have a material impact on future results as such losses emerge. As of June 30, 2021, we had established case reserves and reported losses incurred for 42,999 loans in our delinquency inventory and our IBNR reserve totaled $28 million. Though not reflected in our June 30, 2021 financial results, as of July 31, 2021, our delinquency inventory had decreased to 41,411 loans. The number of loans in our delinquency inventory may increase from that level as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, including as a result of high unemployment associated with initiatives intended to reduce the transmission of COVID-19. As a result, our losses incurred may increase in future periods. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of delinquencies and our losses incurred will be influenced by various factors, including those discussed in our risk factor titled "The COVID-19 pandemic may continue to materially impact our financial results and may also materially impact our business, liquidity and financial condition."

When we establish case reserves, we estimate our ultimate loss on delinquent loans by estimating the number of such loans that will result in a claim payment (the "claim rate"), and further estimating the amount of the claim payment (the "claim severity"). Our estimates incorporate anticipated cures, loss mitigation activity, rescissions and curtailments. The establishment of loss reserves is subject to inherent uncertainty and requires judgment by management. Our actual claim payments may be substantially different than our loss reserve estimates. Our estimates could be affected by several factors, including a change in regional or national economic conditions, the impact of past and future government initiatives and actions taken by the GSEs to mitigate the economic harm caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (including foreclosure moratoriums and mortgage forbearance and modification programs) and efforts to reduce the transmission of COVID-19, and a change in the length of time loans are

delinquent before claims are received. All else being equal, the longer a loan is delinquent before a claim is received, the greater the severity. In light of the uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the impact of foreclosure moratoriums and forbearance programs, the average time it takes to receive a claim may increase. The change in economic conditions may include changes in unemployment, including prolonged unemployment as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may affect the ability of borrowers to make mortgage payments, and changes in home prices, which may affect the willingness of borrowers to make mortgage payments when the value of the home is below the mortgage balance. The economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic may be disproportionately concentrated in certain geographic regions. Information about the geographic dispersion of our insurance in force can be found in our Annual Reports on Form 10-K and our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. Changes to our claim rate and claim severity estimates could have a material impact on our future results, even in a stable economic environment. Losses incurred generally have followed a seasonal trend in which the second half of the year has weaker credit performance than the first half, with higher new default notice activity and a lower cure rate; however, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic affected this pattern in 2020 when new delinquency notice activity was higher in the second quarter of the year.

The GSEs’ charters generally require credit enhancement for a low down payment mortgage loan (a loan in an amount that exceeds 80% of a home’s value) in order for such loan to be eligible for purchase by the GSEs. Private mortgage insurance generally has been purchased by lenders in primary mortgage market transactions to satisfy this credit enhancement requirement. In 2018, the GSEs initiated secondary mortgage market programs with loan level mortgage default coverage provided by various (re)insurers that are not mortgage insurers governed by PMIERs, and that are not selected by the lenders. These programs, which currently account for a small percentage of the low down payment market, compete with traditional private mortgage insurance and, due to differences in policy terms, they may offer premium rates that are below prevalent single premium lender-paid mortgage insurance ("LPMI") rates. We participate in these programs from time to time. See our risk factor titled “Changes in the business practices of the GSEs, federal legislation that changes their charters or a restructuring of the GSEs could reduce our revenues or increase our losses” for a discussion of various business practices of the GSEs that may be changed, including through expansion or modification of these programs.

The GSEs (and other investors) have also used other forms of credit enhancement that did not involve traditional private mortgage insurance, such as engaging in credit-linked note transactions executed in the capital markets, or using other forms of debt issuances or securitizations that transfer credit risk directly to other investors, including competitors and an affiliate of MGIC; using other risk mitigation techniques in conjunction with reduced levels of private mortgage insurance coverage; or accepting credit risk without credit enhancement.

The FHA's share of the low down payment residential mortgages that were subject to FHA, VA, USDA or primary private mortgage insurance was 23.2% in the first quarter of 2021, 23.4% in 2020 and 28.2% in 2019. Beginning in 2012, the FHA’s share has been as low as 23.2% (in the first quarter of 2021) and as high as 42.1% (in 2012). Factors that influence the FHA’s market share include relative rates and fees, underwriting guidelines and loan limits of the FHA, VA, private mortgage insurers and the GSEs; lenders' perceptions of legal risks under FHA versus GSE programs; flexibility for the FHA to establish new products as a result of federal legislation and programs; returns expected to be obtained by lenders for Ginnie Mae securitization of FHA-insured loans compared to those obtained from selling loans to the GSEs for securitization; and differences in policy terms, such as the ability of a borrower to cancel insurance coverage under certain circumstances. The current Presidential Administration appears more likely than the last Administration to reduce the FHA’s mortgage insurance premium rates. Such a rate reduction would negatively impact our NIW; however, given the many factors that influence the FHA's market share, it is difficult to predict the impact. In addition, we cannot predict how the factors that affect the FHA’s share of new insurance written will change in the future.

The VA's share of the low down payment residential mortgages that were subject to FHA, VA, USDA or primary private mortgage insurance was 34.8% in the first quarter of 2021, 30.9% in 2020 and 25.2% in 2019. Beginning in 2012, the VA’s share has been as low as 22.8% (in 2013) and as high as 34.8% (in the first quarter of 2021). We believe that the VA’s market share has generally been elevated in recent years because of an increase in the number of borrowers that are eligible for the VA’s program, which

•The level of private mortgage insurance coverage, subject to the limitations of the GSEs’ charters, when private mortgage insurance is used as the required credit enhancement on low down payment mortgages (the GSEs generally require a level of mortgage insurance coverage that is higher than the level of coverage required by their charters; any change in the required level of coverage will impact our new risk written).

The FHFA has been the conservator of the GSEs since 2008 and has the authority to control and direct their operations. The increased role that the federal government has assumed in the residential housing finance system through the GSE conservatorship may increase the likelihood that the business practices of the GSEs change, including through administrative action, in ways that have a material adverse effect on us and that the charters of the GSEs are changed by new federal legislation.

In 2019, under the prior Presidential Administration, the U.S. Treasury Department ("Treasury") released the “Treasury Housing Reform Plan” (the "Plan"). The Plan recommends administrative and legislative reforms for the housing finance system, with such reforms intended, among other things, to achieve the goals of ending the conservatorships of the GSEs. The impact of the Plan on private mortgage insurance is unclear, in part, due to the change in Presidential Administration.

The GSEs announced that loans with applications received on or after July 1, 2021 cannot be "GSE Patch" loans and must conform to a new "Qualified Mortgage" ("QM") definition. The GSE Patch had expanded the definition of QM under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) ("TILA") to include mortgages eligible to be purchased by the GSEs, even if the mortgages did not meet the debt-to-income ("DTI") ratio limit of 43% that was included in the previous QM definition. Originating a QM may provide a lender with legal protection from lawsuits that claim the lender failed to verify a borrower’s ability to repay. The new QM definition continues to require lenders to consider a borrower's DTI ratio; however, it replaces the DTI ratio cap with a pricing threshold that excludes from the definition of QM a loan whose annual percentage rate ("APR") exceeds the average prime offer rate for comparable loans by 2.25 percentage points or more. Although approximately 21% of our first half 2021 NIW was on

Treasury's Plan indicated that the FHFA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") should develop and implement a specific understanding as to the appropriate roles and overlap between the GSEs and FHA, including with respect to the GSEs’ acquisitions of high LTV ratio loans and high DTI ratio loans. In connection with the 2021 amendment to their Preferred Stock Purchase Plans, the GSEs must limit the acquisition of certain loans with multiple higher risk characteristics related to LTV, DTI and credit score, to levels indicated to be their current levels at the time of the amendment.

As a result of the matters referred to above, the 2021 change in the Presidential Administration, and the June 2021 appointment of a new Acting Director of the FHFA, it is uncertain what role the GSEs, FHA and private capital, including private mortgage insurance, will play in the residential housing finance system in the future. The timing and impact on our business of any resulting changes is uncertain. Many of the proposed changes would require Congressional action to implement and it is difficult to estimate when Congressional action would be final and how long any associated phase-in period may last.

We have in place quota share reinsurance ("QSR") and excess of loss reinsurance ("XOL") transactions providing various amounts of coverage on 90% of our risk in force as of June 30, 2021. Our QSR transactions with unaffiliated reinsurers cover most of our insurance written from 2013 through 2022, and smaller portions of our insurance written prior to 2013 and from 2023 through 2025. The weighted average coverage percentage of our QSR transactions was 24%, based on risk in force as of June 30, 2021. Our XOL transactions at June 30, 2021 provided excess-of-loss reinsurance coverage for a portion of the risk associated with certain mortgage insurance policies having insurance coverage in force dates from July 1, 2016 through March 31, 2019 and January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, all dates inclusive. On August 3, 2021, we entered into another XOL transaction covering the vast majority of our mortgage insurance policies having insurance coverage in force dates from January 1, 2021 through May 28, 2021. The XOL transactions were entered into with special purpose insurers that issued notes linked to the reinsurance coverage ("Insurance Linked Notes" or "ILNs"). The reinsurance transactions reduce the tail-risk associated with stress scenarios. As a result, they reduce the capital that we are required to hold to support the risk and they allow us to earn higher returns on our business than we would without them. However, reinsurance may not always be available to us or available on similar terms, the quota share reinsurance transactions subject us to counterparty credit risk, and the GSEs may change the credit they allow under the PMIERs for risk ceded under our reinsurance transactions. If we are unable to obtain reinsurance for NIW, the capital required to support our NIW will increase and our returns may decrease absent an increase in our premium rates. An increase in our premium rates may lead to a decrease in our NIW.

We are subject to comprehensive regulation, including by state insurance departments. Many regulations are designed for the protection of our insured policyholders and consumers, rather than for the benefit of investors. Mortgage insurers, including MGIC, have in the past been involved in litigation and regulatory actions related to alleged violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), and the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). While these proceedings in the aggregate did not result in material liability for MGIC, there can be no assurance that the outcome of future proceedings, if any, under these laws would not have a material adverse effect on us. To the extent that we are construed to make independent credit decisions in connection with our contract underwriting activities, we also could be subject to increased regulatory requirements under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), FCRA, and other laws. Under ECOA, examination may also be made of whether a mortgage insurer's underwriting decisions have a disparate impact on persons belonging to a protected class in violation of the law.

Although their scope varies, state insurance laws generally grant broad supervisory powers to agencies or officials to examine insurance companies and enforce rules or exercise discretion affecting almost every significant aspect of the insurance business, including payment for the referral of insurance business, premium rates and discrimination in pricing, and minimum capital requirements. The increased use, by the private mortgage insurance industry, of risk-based pricing systems that establish premium rates based on more attributes than previously considered, and of algorithms, artificial intelligence and data and analytics, may lead to additional regulatory scrutiny of premium rates and of other matters such as discrimination in pricing and underwriting, data privacy and access to insurance. For more information about state capital requirements, see our risk factor titled “State capital requirements may prevent us from continuing to write new insurance on an uninterrupted basis.” For information about regulation of data privacy, see our risk factor titled “We could be adversely affected if personal information on consumers that we maintain is improperly disclosed; our information technology systems are damaged or their operations are interrupted; or our automated processes do not operate as expected.” For more details about the various ways in which our subsidiaries are regulated, see “Business - Regulation” in Item 1 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020.

The factors that may affect the volume of low down payment mortgage originations include the health of the U.S. economy, conditions in regional and local economies and the level of consumer confidence; restrictions on mortgage credit due to more stringent underwriting standards, liquidity issues or risk-retention and/or capital requirements affecting lenders; the level of home mortgage interest rates; housing affordability; new and existing housing availability; the rate of household formation, which is influenced, in part, by population and immigration trends; homeownership rates; the rate of home price appreciation, which in times of heavy refinancing can affect whether refinanced loans have LTV ratios that require private mortgage insurance; and government housing policy encouraging loans to first-time homebuyers. A decline in the volume of low down payment home mortgage originations could decrease demand for mortgage insurance and limit our NIW. For other factors that could decrease the demand for mortgage insurance, see our risk factor titled “The amount of insurance we write could be adversely affected if lenders and investors select alternatives to private mortgage insurance.”

The insurance laws of 16 jurisdictions, including Wisconsin, MGIC's domiciliary state, require a mortgage insurer to maintain a minimum amount of statutory capital relative to its risk in force (or a similar measure) in order for the mortgage insurer to continue to write new business. We refer to these requirements as the “State Capital Requirements.” While they vary among jurisdictions, the most common State Capital Requirements allow for a maximum risk-to-capital ratio of 25 to 1. A risk-to-capital ratio will increase if (i) the percentage decrease in capital exceeds the percentage decrease in insured risk, or (ii) the percentage increase in capital is less than the percentage increase in insured risk. Wisconsin does not regulate capital by using a risk-to-capital measure but instead requires a minimum policyholder position (“MPP”). The “policyholder position” of a mortgage insurer is its net worth or surplus, contingency reserve and a portion of the reserves for unearned premiums.

At June 30, 2021 MGIC’s risk-to-capital ratio was 8.9 to 1, below the maximum allowed by the jurisdictions with State Capital Requirements, and its policyholder position was $3.5 billion above the required MPP of $1.7 billion. At June 30, 2021, the risk-to-capital ratio of our combined insurance operations was 8.9 to 1. Our risk-to-capital ratio and MPP reflect full credit for the risk ceded under our quota share reinsurance and excess of loss transactions with unaffiliated reinsurers. It is possible that under the revised State Capital Requirements discussed below, MGIC will not be allowed full credit for the risk ceded under such transactions. If MGIC is not allowed an agreed level of credit under the State Capital Requirements, MGIC may terminate the reinsurance transactions, without penalty.

The NAIC previously announced plans to revise the State Capital Requirements that are provided for in its Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Model Act. In December 2019, a working group of state regulators released an exposure draft of a revised Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Model Act and a risk-based capital framework to establish capital requirements for mortgage insurers, although no date has been established by which the NAIC must propose revisions to the capital requirements and certain items have not yet been completely addressed by the framework, including the treatment of ceded risk and minimum capital floors. Currently we believe that the PMIERs contain more restrictive capital requirements than the draft Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Model Act in most circumstances.

While MGIC currently meets the State Capital Requirements of Wisconsin and all other jurisdictions, it could be prevented from writing new business in the future in all jurisdictions if it fails to meet the State Capital Requirements of Wisconsin, or it could be prevented from writing new business in a particular jurisdiction if it fails to meet the State Capital Requirements of that jurisdiction, and in each case if MGIC does not obtain a waiver of such requirements. It is possible that regulatory action by one or more jurisdictions, including those that do not have specific State Capital Requirements, may prevent MGIC from continuing to write new insurance in such jurisdictions. If we are unable to write business in a particular jurisdiction, lenders may be unwilling to procure insurance from us anywhere. In addition, a lender’s assessment of the future ability of our insurance operations to meet the State Capital Requirements or the PMIERs may affect its willingness to procure insurance from us. In this regard, see our risk factor titled “Competition or changes in our relationships with our customers could reduce our revenues, reduce our premium yields and/or increase our losses.” A possible future failure by MGIC to meet the State Capital Requirements or the PMIERs will not necessarily mean that MGIC lacks sufficient resources to pay claims on its insurance liabilities. You should read the rest of these risk factors for information about matters that could negatively affect MGIC’s compliance with State Capital Requirements and its claims paying resources, including the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We depend on reliable, consistent third-party servicing of the loans that we insure. An increase in delinquent loans, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, may result in liquidity issues and operational burdens for servicers. When a mortgage loan that is collateral for a mortgage backed security ("MBS") becomes delinquent, the servicer is usually required to continue to pay principal and interest to the MBS investors, generally for four months, even though the servicer is not receiving payments from borrowers. This may cause liquidity issues for especially non-bank servicers (who service approximately 44% of the loans underlying our insurance in force as of June 30, 2021) because they do not have the same sources of liquidity that bank servicers have.

While there has been no disruption in our premium receipts through the end of June 2021, servicers who experience future liquidity issues may be less likely to advance premiums to us on policies covering delinquent loans or to remit premiums on policies covering loans that are not delinquent. Our policies allow us to cancel coverage on loans that are not delinquent if the premiums are not paid within a grace period. However, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many states have enacted moratoriums on the cancellation of insurance due to non-payment. The specific provisions of the moratoriums vary from state-to-state. In addition, the GSEs have the option to reinstate coverage by payment of the applicable premium within 30 days after notifying us of their intention to reinstate the cancelled coverage.

The information presented in this report and on our website with respect to the mortgage loans we insure is based on information reported to us by third parties, including the servicers and originators of the mortgage loans, and information presented may be subject to lapses or inaccuracies in reporting from such third parties. In many cases, we may not be aware that information reported to us is incorrect until such time as a claim is made against us under the relevant insurance policy. We do not receive monthly information from servicers for single premium policies, and may not be aware that the mortgage loans insured by such policies have been repaid. We periodically attempt to determine if coverage is still in force on such policies by asking the last servicer of record or through the periodic reconciliation of loan information with certain servicers. It may be possible that our reports continue to reflect, as active, policies on mortgage loans that have been repaid.

The premium from a single premium policy is collected upfront and generally earned over the estimated life of the policy. In contrast, premiums from a monthly premium policy are received and earned each month over the life of the policy. In each year, most of our premiums earned are from insurance that has been written in prior years. As a result, the length of time insurance remains in force, which is generally measured by persistency (the percentage of our insurance remaining in force from one year prior), is a significant determinant of our revenues. A higher than expected persistency rate may decrease the profitability from single premium policies because they will remain in force longer and may increase the incidence of claims than was estimated when the policies were written. A low persistency rate on monthly premium policies will reduce future premiums but may also reduce the incidence of claims, while a high persistency on those policies will increase future premiums but may increase the incidence of claims.

Our persistency rate was 57.1% at June 30, 2021, 60.5% at December 31, 2020 and 75.8% at December 31, 2019. Since 2000, our year-end persistency ranged from a high of 84.7% at December 31, 2009 to a low of 47.1% at December 31, 2003. Our persistency rate is primarily affected by the level of current mortgage interest rates compared to the mortgage coupon rates on our insurance in force, which affects the vulnerability of the insurance in force to refinancing; and the current amount of equity that borrowers have in the homes underlying our insurance in force. Borrowers with significant equity may be able to refinance their loans without requiring mortgage insurance. In addition, the Homeowners Protection Act (“HOPA”) requires servicers to cancel mortgage insurance when a borrower’s LTV ratio meets or is scheduled to meet certain levels, generally based on the original value of the home and subject to various conditions. The GSEs’ mortgage insurance cancellation guidelines may be more flexible than HOPA and they consider a home’s current value.

Pandemics and other natural disasters, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, wildfires and floods, or other events related to changing climatic conditions, could trigger an economic downturn in the affected areas, or in areas with similar risks, which could result in a decline in our business and an increased claim rate on policies in those areas. Natural disasters and rising sea levels could lead to a decrease in home prices in the affected areas, or in areas with similar risks, which could result in an increase in claim severity on policies in those areas. In addition, the inability of a borrower to obtain hazard and/or flood insurance, or the increased cost of such insurance, could lead to an increase in defaults or a decrease in home prices in the affected areas. If we were to attempt to limit our new insurance written in disaster-prone areas, lenders may be unwilling to procure insurance from us anywhere.

The PMIERs require us to maintain significantly more "Minimum Required Assets" for delinquent loans than for performing loans; however, the increase in Minimum Required Assets is not as great for certain delinquent loans in areas that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has declared major disaster areas and for certain loans whose borrowers have been affected by COVID-19. See our risk factor titled "We may not continue to meet the GSEs’ private mortgage insurer eligibility requirements and our returns may decrease if we are required to maintain more capital in order to maintain our eligibility."

On January 19, 2021, the FHFA issued a Request for Input (“RFI”) regarding Climate and Natural Disaster Risk Management at the Regulated Entities (i.e. the GSEs and the Federal Home Loan Bank system). It is possible that efforts to manage this risk by the FHFA, GSEs or others could materially impact the volume and characteristics of our NIW, home prices in certain areas and defaults by borrowers in certain areas.

We set premiums at the time a policy is issued based on our expectations regarding likely performance of the insured risks over the long term. Generally, we cannot cancel mortgage insurance coverage or adjust renewal premiums during the life of a policy. As a result, higher than anticipated claims generally cannot be offset by premium increases on policies in force or mitigated by our non-renewal or cancellation of insurance coverage. Our premiums are subject to approval by state regulatory agencies, which can delay or limit our ability to increase premiums on future policies. In addition, our customized rate plans may delay our ability to increase premiums on future policies covered by such plans. The premiums we charge, the investment income we earn and the amount of reinsurance we carry may not be adequate to compensate us for the risks and costs associated with the insurance coverage provided to customers. An increase in the number or size of claims, compared to what we anticipated when we set the premiums, could adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition. Our premium rates are also based in part on the amount of capital we are required to hold against the insured risk. If the amount of capital we are required to hold increases from the amount we were required to hold when we set the premiums, our returns may be lower than we assumed. For a discussion of the amount of capital we are required to hold, see our risk factor titled "We may not continue to meet the GSEs’ private mortgage insurer eligibility requirements and our returns may decrease if we are required to maintain more capital in order to maintain our eligibility."

The private mortgage insurance industry is highly competitive and is expected to remain so. We believe we currently compete with other private mortgage insurers based on premium rates, underwriting requirements, financial strength (including based on credit or financial strength ratings), customer relationships, name recognition, reputation, strength of management teams and field organizations, the ancillary products and services provided to lenders and the effective use of technology and innovation in the delivery and servicing of our mortgage insurance products.

Our relationships with our customers, which may affect the amount of our NIW, could be adversely affected by a variety of factors, including if our premium rates are higher than those of our competitors, our underwriting requirements are more restrictive than those of our competitors, or our customers are dissatisfied with our claims-paying practices (including insurance policy rescissions and claim curtailments).

In recent years, much of the competition in the industry has centered on pricing practices which have included: (a) decreased use of standard rate cards; and (b) increased use of (i) "risk-based pricing systems" that use a spectrum of filed rates to allow for formulaic, risk-based pricing based on multiple attributes that may be quickly adjusted within certain parameters, and (ii) customized rate plans, both of which typically have rates lower than the standard rate card. While our increased use of reinsurance over the past several years has helped to mitigate the negative effect of declining premium rates on our returns, refer to our risk factor titled "Reinsurance may not always be available or affordable" for a discussion of the risks associated with the availability of reinsurance.

The widespread use of risk-based pricing systems by the private mortgage insurance industry makes it more difficult to compare our rates to those offered by our competitors. We may not be aware of industry rate changes until we observe that our volume of NIW has changed. In addition, business under customized rate plans is awarded by certain customers for only limited periods of time. As a result, our NIW may fluctuate more than it had in the past. Regarding the concentration of our new business, our top ten customers accounted for approximately 40% and 31% of our NIW, in each of the twelve months ended June 30, 2021 and June 30, 2020, respectively.

We monitor various competitive and economic factors while seeking to balance both profitability and market share considerations in developing our pricing strategies. Premium rates on NIW will change our premium yield (net premiums earned divided by the average insurance in force) over time as older insurance policies run off and new insurance policies with premium rates that are generally lower are written.

Certain of our competitors have access to capital at a lower cost than we do (including, through off-shore intercompany reinsurance vehicles, which have tax advantages that may increase if U.S. corporate income taxes increase). As a result, they may be able to achieve higher after-tax rates of return on their NIW compared to us, which could allow them to leverage reduced premium rates to gain market share, and they may be better positioned to compete outside of traditional mortgage insurance, including by participating in alternative forms of credit enhancement pursued by the GSEs discussed in our risk factor titled "The

Although the current PMIERs of the GSEs do not require an insurer to maintain minimum financial strength ratings, our financial strength ratings can affect us in the ways set forth below. If we are unable to compete effectively in the current or any future markets as a result of the financial strength ratings assigned to our insurance subsidiaries, our future new insurance written could be negatively affected.

•Our ability to participate in the non-GSE residential mortgage-backed securities market (the size of which has been limited since 2008, but may grow in the future), could depend on our ability to maintain and improve our investment grade ratings for our insurance subsidiaries. We could be competitively disadvantaged with some market participants because the financial strength ratings of our insurance subsidiaries are lower than those of some competitors. MGIC's financial strength rating from A.M. Best is A- (with a stable outlook), from Moody’s is Baa1 (with a stable outlook) and from Standard & Poor’s is BBB+ (with a stable outlook).

•Financial strength ratings may also play a greater role if the GSEs no longer operate in their current capacities, for example, due to legislative or regulatory action. In addition, although the PMIERs do not require minimum financial strength ratings, the GSEs consider financial strength ratings to be important when using forms of credit enhancement other than traditional mortgage insurance, as discussed in our risk factor titled "The amount of insurance we write could be adversely affected if lenders and investors select alternatives to private mortgage insurance." The final GSE capital framework provides more capital credit for transactions with higher rated counterparties, as well as those who are diversified. Although we are currently unaware of a direct impact on MGIC, this could potentially become a competitive disadvantage in the future.

Before paying an insurance claim, generally we review the loan and servicing files to determine the appropriateness of the claim amount. When reviewing the files, we may determine that we have the right to rescind coverage or deny a claim on the loan (both referred to as “rescissions”). In addition, our insurance policies generally provide that we can reduce a claim if the servicer did not comply with its obligations under our insurance policy (such reduction referred to as a “curtailment”). In recent quarters, an immaterial percentage of claims received in a quarter have been resolved by rescissions. In the first half of 2021 and in 2020, curtailments reduced our average claim paid by approximately 4.1% and 3.6%, respectively. The COVID-19-related foreclosure moratoriums and forbearance plans have decreased our claims paid activity beginning in the second quarter of 2020. It is difficult to predict the level of curtailments once the foreclosure moratoriums and forbearance plans end. Our loss reserving methodology incorporates our estimates of future rescissions, curtailments, and reversals of rescissions and curtailments. A variance between ultimate actual rescission, curtailment and reversal rates and our estimates, as a result of the outcome of litigation, settlements or other factors, could materially affect our losses.

When the insured disputes our right to rescind coverage or curtail claims, we generally engage in discussions in an attempt to settle the dispute. If we are unable to reach a settlement, the outcome of a dispute ultimately may be determined by legal proceedings. Under ASC 450-20, until a loss associated with settlement discussions or legal proceedings becomes probable and can be reasonably estimated, we consider our claim payment or rescission resolved for financial reporting purposes and do not accrue an estimated loss. When we determine that a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we record our best estimate of our probable loss, including recording a probable loss of $6.3 million in the second quarter of 2021. In those cases, until settlement negotiations or legal proceedings are concluded (including the receipt of any necessary GSE approvals), it is possible that we will record an additional loss. We are currently involved in discussions and/or proceedings with respect to our claims paying practices. Although it is possible that, if not resolved by negotiation, we will not prevail on all matters, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the potential liability. We estimate the maximum exposure where a loss is reasonably possible to be approximately $28 million more than the amount of probable loss we have recorded. This estimate of maximum exposure is based on currently available information; is subject to significant judgment, numerous assumptions and known and unknown uncertainties; will include an amount for matters for which we have recorded a probable loss until such matters are concluded; will include different matters from time to time; and does not include interest or consequential or exemplary damages.

We employ proprietary and third party models to project returns, price products (including through our risk-based pricing system), determine the techniques used to underwrite insurance, estimate reserves, generate projections used to estimate future pre-tax income and to evaluate loss recognition testing, evaluate risk, determine internal capital requirements, perform stress testing, and for other uses. These models rely on estimates and projections that are inherently uncertain and may not operate as intended, especially in unprecedented circumstances such as those surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, or with respect to emerging risks, such as changing climatic conditions. In addition, from time to time we seek to improve certain models, and the conversion process may result in material changes to certain assumptions, which could impact our expectations about future returns and financial results. The models we employ are complex, which increases our risk of error in their design, implementation or use. Also, the associated input data, assumptions and calculations may not be correct or accurate, and the controls we have in place to mitigate that risk may not be effective in all cases. The risks related to our models may increase when we change assumptions and/or methodologies, or when we add or change modeling platforms. We have enhanced, and we intend to continue to enhance, our modeling capabilities. Moreover, we may use information we receive through enhancements to refine or otherwise change existing assumptions and/or methodologies.

Our success depends, in part, on the skills, working relationships and continued services of our management team and other key personnel. The unexpected departure of key personnel could adversely affect the conduct of our business. In such event, we would be required to obtain other personnel to manage and operate our business. In addition, we will be required to replace the knowledge and expertise of our aging workforce as our workers retire. In either case, there can be no assurance that we would be able to develop or recruit suitable replacements for the departing individuals; that replacements could be hired, if necessary, on terms that are favorable to us; or that we can successfully transition such replacements in a timely manner. We currently have not entered into any employment agreements with our officers or key personnel. Volatility or lack of performance in our stock price may affect our ability to retain our key personnel or attract replacements should key personnel depart. Without a properly skilled and experienced workforce, our costs, including productivity costs and costs to replace employees may increase, and this could negatively impact our earnings.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Company activated its business continuity program by transitioning to a virtual workforce model with certain essential activities supported by limited staff in controlled office environments. This transition was made to responsibly provide for the safety of employees and to continue to serve customers across our businesses. As our employees begin to return to the office, they may be exposed to health risks, which may expose us to potential liability. We have established an interim succession plan for each of our key executives, should an executive be unable to perform his or her duties.

The Minimum Required Assets under the PMIERs are, in part, a function of the direct risk-in-force and the risk profile of the loans we insure, considering LTV ratio, credit score, vintage, Home Affordable Refinance Program ("HARP") status and delinquency status; and whether the loans were insured under lender-paid mortgage insurance policies or other policies that are not subject to automatic termination consistent with the Homeowners Protection Act requirements for borrower-paid mortgage insurance. Therefore, if our direct risk-in-force increases through increases in NIW, or if our mix of business changes to include loans with higher LTV ratios or lower FICO scores, for example, all other things equal, we will be required to hold more Available Assets in order to maintain GSE eligibility.

The minimum capital required by the risk-based capital framework contained in the exposure draft released by the NAIC in December 2019 would be, in part, a function of certain loan and economic factors, including property location, LTV ratio and credit score; general underwriting quality in the market at the time of loan origination; the age of the loan; and the premium rate we charge. Depending on the provisions of the capital requirements when they are released in final form and become effective, our mix of business may affect the minimum capital we are required to hold under the new framework.

The percentage of our NIW from all single-premium policies was 8% in the first half of 2021 and 9% in 2020 and has ranged from approximately 8% in 2021 to 19% in 2017. Depending on the actual life of a single premium policy and its premium rate relative to that of a monthly premium policy, a single premium policy may generate more or less premium than a monthly premium policy over its life.

As discussed in our risk factor titled "Reinsurance may not always be available or affordable," we have in place various QSR transactions. Although the transactions reduce our premiums, they have a lesser impact on our overall results, as losses ceded under the transactions reduce our losses incurred and the ceding commissions we receive reduce our underwriting expenses. The effect of the QSR transactions on the various components of pre-tax income will vary from period to period, depending on the level of ceded losses. We also have in place various excess-of-loss ("XOL") reinsurance transactions, under which we cede premiums. Under the XOL reinsurance transactions, for the respective reinsurance coverage periods, we retain the first layer of aggregate losses, and a special purpose entity provides second layer coverage up to the outstanding reinsurance coverage amount.

Our ability to rescind insurance coverage became more limited for new insurance written beginning in mid-2012, and it became further limited for new insurance written under our revised master policy that became effective March 1, 2020. These limitations may result in higher losses than would be the case under our previous master policies. In addition, our rescission rights temporarily have become more limited due to accommodations we have made in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. We have waived our rescission rights in certain circumstances where the failure to make payments was associated with a COVID-19 pandemic-related forbearance.

From time to time, in response to market conditions, we change the types of loans that we insure. We also may change our underwriting guidelines, in part by agreeing with certain approval recommendations from a GSE automated underwriting system. We also make exceptions to our underwriting requirements on a loan-by-loan basis and for certain customer programs. Our underwriting requirements are available on our website at http://www.mgic.com/underwriting/index.html.

Even when home prices are stable or rising, mortgages with certain characteristics have higher probabilities of claims. As of June 30, 2021, mortgages with these characteristics in our primary risk in force included mortgages with LTV ratios greater than 95% (14.7%), mortgages with borrowers having FICO scores below 680 (8.6%), including those with borrowers having FICO scores of 620-679 (7.3%), mortgages with limited underwriting, including limited borrower documentation (1.2%), and mortgages with borrowers having DTI ratios greater than 45% (or where no ratio is available) (13.3%), each attribute as determined at the time of loan origination. Loans with more than one of these attributes accounted for 2.3% of our primary risk in force as of June 30, 2021, and less than one percent of our NIW in the first half of 2021 and in 2020. When home prices increase and/or the percentage of our NIW from purchase transactions increases, our NIW on mortgages with higher LTV ratios and higher DTI ratios may increase.

From time to time, we change the processes we use to underwrite loans. For example, we may rely on information provided to us by a lender that was obtained from certain of the GSEs’ automated appraisal and income verification tools. Those tools may produce results that differ from the results that would have been determined using different methods. For example, the appraisal tools may indicate property values that differ from the values that would have been determined by onsite appraisals. In addition, we continue to further automate our underwriting processes. It is possible that our automated processes result in our insuring loans that we would not otherwise have insured under our prior processes. In addition, the number of refinance loans receiving appraisal waivers from the GSEs increased significantly beginning in 2020 and temporary policies adopted by the GSEs in response to COVID-19, which we follow, allow for property valuations in certain transactions to be based on appraisals that do not involve an onsite or interior property inspection of the property. Our acceptance of GSE appraisal waivers and appraisal flexibilities may affect our pricing and risk assessment.

Approximately 72.1% of our first half 2021 NIW and 70.2% of our 2020 NIW (by risk written) was originated under delegated underwriting programs pursuant to which the loan originators had authority on our behalf to underwrite the loans for our mortgage insurance. For loans originated through a delegated underwriting program, we depend on the originators' compliance with our guidelines and rely on the originators' representations that the loans being insured satisfy the underwriting guidelines, eligibility criteria and other requirements. While we have established systems and processes to monitor whether certain aspects of our underwriting guidelines were being followed by the originators, such systems may not ensure that the guidelines were being strictly followed at the time the loans were originated.

The widespread use of risk-based pricing systems by the private mortgage insurance industry (discussed in our risk factor titled "Competition or changes in our relationships with our customers could reduce our revenues, reduce our premium yields and / or increase our losses") makes it more difficult to compare our premium rates to those offered by our competitors. We may not be aware of industry rate changes until we observe that our mix of new insurance written has changed and our mix may fluctuate more as a result.

If state or federal regulations or statutes are changed in ways that ease mortgage lending standards and/or requirements, or if lenders seek ways to replace business in times of lower mortgage originations, it is possible that more mortgage loans could be originated with higher risk characteristics than are currently being originated, such as loans with lower FICO scores and higher DTI ratios. Lenders could pressure mortgage insurers to insure such loans, which are expected to experience higher claim rates. Although we attempt to incorporate these higher expected claim rates into our underwriting and pricing models, there can be no

At June 30, 2021, we had approximately $772 million in cash and investments at our holding company and our holding company’s debt obligations were $1.1 billion in aggregate principal amount, consisting of $242 million of 5.75% Senior Notes due in 2023 ("5.75% Notes"), $650 million of 5.25% Senior Notes due 2028 (the 5.25% Notes), and $209 million of 9% Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures due in 2063 ("9% Debentures"). Annual debt service on the 5.75% Notes, 5.25% Notes and 9% Debentures outstanding as of June 30, 2021, is approximately $70 million.

The 5.75% Senior Notes, 5.25% Senior Notes and 9% Debentures are obligations of our holding company, MGIC Investment Corporation, and not of its subsidiaries. The payment of dividends from our insurance subsidiaries which, other than investment income and raising capital in the public markets, is the principal source of our holding company cash inflow, is restricted by insurance regulation. In addition, through September 30, 2021, dividends paid by MGIC to our holding company require GSE approval if MGIC's excess of Available Assets is or would become less than 50% of its Minimum Required Assets; and from October 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021 such dividends require GSE approval if MGIC's excess of Available Assets is or would become less than 15% of its Minimum Required Assets. MGIC is the principal source of dividends. In the first quarter of 2020, MGIC paid a total of $390 million in dividends of cash and investments to our holding company. We ask the OCI not to object before MGIC pays dividends and, due to the uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, MGIC did not pay dividends of cash and/or investment securities to the holding company from the second quarter of 2020 through the second quarter of 2021; however, in the third quarter of 2020, MGIC distributed to the holding company, as a dividend, its ownership in $133 million of the 9% Debentures, with a fair value of $167 million and in August 2021, MGIC paid a $150 million cash dividend to the holding company. GSE approval was not required for the August 2021 dividend. Future dividend payments from MGIC to the holding company will be determined in consultation with the board of directors, and after considering any updated estimates about the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business.

In 2020 we repurchased approximately 9.6 million shares of our common stock, using approximately $120 million of holding company resources. As of June 30, 2021, we had $291 million of authorization remaining to repurchase our common stock through the end of 2021 under a share repurchase program approved by our Board of Directors in January 2020. Repurchases may be made from time to time on the open market (including through 10b5-1 plans) or through privately negotiated transactions. The repurchase program may be suspended for periods or discontinued at any time. Due to the uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, we had temporarily suspended stock repurchases but intend to resume them in the third quarter. If any additional capital contributions to our subsidiaries were required, such contributions would decrease our holding company cash and investments. As described in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 11, 2016, MGIC borrowed $155 million from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago. This is an obligation of MGIC and not of our holding company.

As noted above under our risk factor titled “We may not continue to meet the GSEs’ private mortgage insurer eligibility requirements and our returns may decrease if we are required to maintain more capital in order to maintain our eligibility,” although we are currently in compliance with the requirements of the PMIERs, there can be no assurance that we would not seek to issue additional debt capital or to raise additional equity or equity-linked capital to manage our capital position under the PMIERs or for other purposes. Any future issuance of equity securities may dilute your ownership interest in our company. In addition, the market price of our common stock could decline as a result of sales of a large number of shares or similar securities in the market or the perception that such sales could occur.

At June 30, 2021, we had outstanding $209 million principal amount of 9% Debentures. The principal amount of the 9% Debentures is currently convertible, at the holder’s option, at a conversion rate, which is subject to adjustment, of 75.5932 common shares per $1,000 principal amount of debentures. This represents a conversion price of approximately $13.23 per share. The payment of dividends by our holding company results in an adjustment to the conversion rate and price, with such adjustment generally deferred until the end of the year.

We may redeem the 9% Debentures in whole or in part from time to time, at our option, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the 9% Debentures being redeemed, plus any accrued and unpaid interest, if the closing sale price of our common stock exceeds $17.20 for at least 20 of the 30 trading days preceding notice of the redemption. We have the right, and may elect, to defer interest payable under the 9% Debentures in the future. If a holder elects to convert its 9% Debentures, the interest that has been deferred on the 9% Debentures being converted is also convertible into shares of our common stock. The conversion rate for such deferred interest is based on the average price that our shares traded at during a 5-day period immediately prior to the election to convert the associated debentures. We may elect to pay cash for some or all of the shares

For a discussion of the dilutive effects of our convertible securities on our earnings per share, see Note 6 – “Earnings Per Share” to our consolidated financial statements in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2021. As noted above, we repurchased shares of our common stock in 2020 and intend to do so again in the future. In addition, we repurchased a portion of our debt obligations in 2020 and may do so again in the future.

The market price for our common stock may fluctuate significantly. In addition to the risk factors described herein, the following factors may have an adverse impact on the market price for our common stock: changes in general conditions in the economy, the mortgage insurance industry or the financial markets; announcements by us or our competitors of acquisitions or strategic initiatives; our actual or anticipated quarterly and annual operating results; changes in expectations of future financial performance (including incurred losses on our insurance in force); changes in estimates of securities analysts or rating agencies; actual or anticipated changes in our share repurchase program or dividends; changes in operating performance or market valuation of companies in the mortgage insurance industry; the addition or departure of key personnel; changes in tax law; and adverse press or news announcements affecting us or the industry. In addition, ownership by certain types of investors may affect the market price and trading volume of our common stock. For example, ownership in our common stock by investors such as index funds and exchange-traded funds can affect the stock’s price when those investors must purchase or sell our common stock because the investors have experienced significant cash inflows or outflows, the index to which our common stock belongs has been rebalanced, or our common stock is added to and/or removed from an index (due to changes in our market capitalization, for example).

As part of our business, we maintain large amounts of personal information of consumers. Federal and state laws designed to promote the protection of such information require businesses that collect or maintain consumer information to adopt information security programs, and to notify individuals, and in some jurisdictions, regulatory authorities, of security breaches involving personally identifiable information. Those laws may require free credit monitoring services to be provided to individuals affected by security breaches. While we have information security policies and systems in place to prevent unauthorized disclosure, there can be no assurance that unauthorized disclosure, either through the actions of third parties or employees, will not occur. Unauthorized disclosure could adversely affect our reputation, result in a loss of business and expose us to material claims for damages.

We rely on the efficient and uninterrupted operation of complex information technology systems. All information technology systems are potentially vulnerable to damage or interruption from a variety of sources, including by third-party cyber attacks, including those involving ransomware. Due to our reliance on information technology systems, including ours and those of our customers and third-party service providers, their damage or interruption could adversely affect our reputation and severely disrupt our operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, business prospects and results of operations.

We are in the process of upgrading certain of our information systems, and transforming and automating certain of our business processes, and we continue to enhance our risk-based pricing system and our system for evaluating risk. Certain of our information systems have been in place for a number of years and it has become increasingly difficult to support their operation. The implementation of technological and business process improvements, as well as their integration with customer and third-party systems when applicable, is complex, expensive and time consuming. If we fail to timely and successfully implement and integrate the new technology systems, if the third party providers to which we are becoming increasingly reliant do not perform as expected, if our legacy systems fail to operate as required, or if the upgraded systems and/or transformed and automated business processes do not operate as expected, it could have an adverse impact on our business, business prospects and results of operations.

Our investment portfolio is an important source of revenue and is our primary source of claims paying resources. Although our investment portfolio consists mostly of highly-rated fixed income investments, our investment portfolio is affected by general economic conditions and tax policy, which may adversely affect the markets for credit and interest-rate-sensitive securities, including the extent and timing of investor participation in these markets, the level and volatility of interest rates and credit spreads and, consequently, the value of our fixed income securities. The value of our investment portfolio may also be adversely

affected by ratings downgrades, increased bankruptcies and credit spreads widening in distressed industries. In addition, the collectability and valuation of our municipal bond portfolio may be adversely affected if state and local municipalities incur increased costs to respond to COVID-19 and receive fewer tax revenues due to adverse economic conditions. Our investment portfolio also includes commercial mortgage-backed securities, collateralized loan obligations, and asset-backed securities, which could be adversely affected by declines in real estate valuations, increases in unemployment and/or financial market disruption, including a heightened collection risk on the underlying loans. As a result of these matters, we may not achieve our investment objectives and a reduction in the market value of our investments could have an adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

For the significant portion of our investment portfolio that is held by MGIC, to receive full capital credit under insurance regulatory requirements and under the PMIERs, we generally are limited to investing in investment grade fixed income securities whose yields reflect their lower credit risk profile. Our investment income depends upon the size of the portfolio and its reinvestment at prevailing interest rates. A prolonged period of low investment yields would have an adverse impact on our investment income as would a decrease in the size of the portfolio.

We structure our investment portfolio to satisfy our expected liabilities, including claim payments in our mortgage insurance business. If we underestimate our liabilities or improperly structure our investments to meet these liabilities, we could have unexpected losses resulting from the forced liquidation of fixed income investments before their maturity, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates LIBOR, announced that after 2021 it would no longer publish one-week and two-month tenor USD LIBOR and that after June 30, 2023, it would no longer publish all other USD LIBOR tenors. Efforts are underway to identify and transition to a set of alternative reference rates. The set of alternative rates includes the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”), which the Federal Reserve Bank of New York began publishing in 2018. Because SOFR is calculated based on different criteria than LIBOR, SOFR and LIBOR may diverge.

While it is not currently possible to determine precisely whether, or to what extent, the replacement of LIBOR would affect us, the implementation of alternative benchmark rates to LIBOR may have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. We have three primary types of transactions that involve financial instruments referencing LIBOR. First, as of June 30, 2021, approximately 6% of the fair value of our investment portfolio consisted of securities referencing LIBOR, none of which reference one-week and two-month tenors. Second, as of June 30, 2021, approximately $0.7 billion of our risk in force was on adjustable rate mortgages whose interest is referenced to one-month USD LIBOR. A change in reference rate associated with these loans may affect their principal balance, which may affect our risk-in-force and the amount of Minimum Required Assets we are required to maintain under PMIERs. A change in reference rate may also affect the amount of principal and/or accrued interest we are required to pay in the event of a claim payment. Third, the premiums under most of our 2018-2021 excess-of-loss reinsurance agreements are determined, in part, by the difference between interest payable on the reinsurers’ notes which reference one-month USD LIBOR and earnings from a pool of securities receiving interest that may reference LIBOR (in the first half of 2021, our total premiums on such transactions were approximately $20.3 million).