This conference call transcript was computer generated and almost certianly contains errors. This transcript is provided for information purposes only.EarningsCall, LLC makes no representation about the accuracy of the aforementioned transcript, and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the information provided by the transcript.
spk00: Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Asset Group Limited second quarter earnings call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star 1 on your telephone. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. If you require any further assistance, please press star 0. I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Chris Curran, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. You may begin, sir.
spk04: Thank you, Brian. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our call. Joining me today are Mark Cassell, Chairman and CEO, and Larry McAlee, Chief Financial Officer. Our press release, which contains ESSEN's financial results for the second quarter of 2021, was issued earlier today and is available on our website at essengroup.com. Prior to getting started, I would like to remind participants that today's discussions are being recorded and will include the use of forward-looking statements. These statements are based on current expectations, estimates, projections, and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties which may cause actual results to differ materially. For a discussion of these risks and uncertainties, please review the cautionary language regarding forward-looking statements in today's press release, the risk factors included in our Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 26, 2021, and any other reports and registration statements filed with the SEC, which are also available on our website. Now let me turn the call over to Mark.
spk02: Thanks, Chris, and good morning, everyone. Today, we are pleased to report our second quarter earnings, which exhibited both strong performance and capital generation. Our results for the quarter reflect a favorable operating environment as credit continues to normalize and housing demand remains elevated. The economic engine of our business remains firmly in place as our high-quality earnings and cash flow for the quarter demonstrate the strengths of our buy, manage, and distribute operating model. Our outlook on our business remains positive, as the underlying fundamentals of housing are strong and we continue to make solid progress on the next generation of our S&Edge technology. On the housing front, strong millennial demand and historically low rates continue to provide positive underpinnings. As for S&Edge, we continue to enhance its utility by combining increased amounts of data with the use of artificial intelligence-based models. We believe this capability will be a long-term advantage in pricing and managing credit risk. Now let me touch on our results. For the second quarter, we reported net income of $160 million as compared to $136 million last quarter. On a diluted per share basis, we earned $1.42 for the second quarter compared to $1.21 last quarter, and our annualized return on average equity for the second quarter was 16%. At June 30th, our insurance and force was $204 billion, a 17% increase compared to $175 billion as of the second quarter a year ago. The credit quality of our second quarter NIW was strong, with a weighted average FICO of 744 and a loan-to-value ratio of 92%. Also, we continue to be pleased with credit performance. as our default rate at June 30th was 2.96% compared to 3.7% last quarter and 5.19% at the end of the second quarter a year ago. On the business front, we continue to focus on optimizing our unit economics. While the more tangible aspects of this include using ILNs to minimize loss volatility and ceding more business to S&RE, we also continue to invest in technology-related initiatives. A platform like ours is technologically intensive, as we need to seamlessly deliver pricing and services to thousands of customers located throughout the US. For example, we are nearing completion of migrating our platform to the cloud, which provides more data storage, processing, and computing power. This enables us to deliver our edge technology more efficiently, given the need to quickly analyze large amounts of data from a variety of sources and combine with machine learning techniques. We believe that this will benefit our unit economics over time in optimizing premium levels and credit costs. In fact, we also believe that customer efficiencies of using Edge will deliver our best price to borrowers and challenge the industry practice of using negotiated rate cards. On June 30th, our balance sheet and capital are strong. With over $4 billion in gap equity, access to $2.4 billion in excess of loss reinsurance, and over $800 million of available liquidity at the holding company, we are well positioned. Our most recent ION transaction was our largest to date, where we obtained $558 million of reinsurance through the capital markets. Also, S&Garanty remains the highest rated monoline in our industry at Single A by AMVEST and A3 and BBB Plus by Moody's and S&P, respectively. We remain pleased with our base business, which is an earnings and cash flow engine during positive economic environments. For example, for the first half of the year, our operating margin was 73%, and we generated $340 million in operating cash flow. Given the use of reinsurance, which enhances the sustainability of our business, there's more certainty in the earnings power and capital generation of our franchise. While our practice has been to retain cash and invest, The strength of our business model enables a measured deployment of excess capital amongst the business, strategic investments, and shareholders. We will continue to be thoughtful in deploying excess capital and doing what we believe is in the best long-term interest of the Essendon franchise and our shareholders. Finally, given our financial performance during the second quarter, I am pleased to announce that our board has approved a one cent per share increase in our dividend to 18 cents. Also, in connection with our $250 million repurchase plan, we have bought back approximately 400,000 shares for a total of $18 million as of June 30th. Similar to dividends, repurchasing shares is a tangible demonstration of the benefits of our model in generating capital. It also provides further balance in deploying excess capital between the businesses and redistribution to the shareholders. Now, let me turn the call over to Larry.
spk05: Thanks, Mark, and good morning, everyone. I will now discuss our results for the quarter in more detail. For the second quarter, we earned $1.42 per diluted share compared to $1.21 last quarter and $0.15 in the second quarter a year ago. Our updated estimate of the annualized effective tax rate for the full year 2021 is 16% before consideration of discrete tax items. As a result, the tax rate for the second quarter was 16.1%. We ended the quarter with insurance in force of $204 billion, a 3% increase compared to $197 billion at March 31st, and a 17% increase compared to $175 billion at June 30th, 2020. Net earned premium for the second quarter of 2021 was $217 million and includes $13.3 million of premiums earned by S&RE on our third-party business. The average net premium rate for just the U.S. mortgage insurance business in the second quarter was 41 basis points, down from 42 basis points in the first quarter. Persistency increased during the quarter to 58.3% at June 30, 2021, from 56.1% at March 31, 2021. The provision for losses and loss adjustment expenses in the second quarter was $10 million, compared to $32 million last quarter. The provision for losses in the second quarter benefited from a decline in new notices of default and higher cure activity. During the second quarter, we received 4,934 new default notices, which is down 34%, compared to 7,422 defaults reported in the first quarter. At June 30th, our default rate decreased to 2.96% from 3.7% on March 31st. Consistent with the fourth quarter of 2020 and the first quarter of 2021, we have reserved for new defaults reported in the second quarter of 2021 using our pre-COVID-19 reserve methodology. As a reminder, for new defaults reported in the second and third quarters of 2020, we provided reserves using a 7% claim rate assumption. This assumption was based on the expectation that programs such as the federal stimulus, foreclosure moratoriums, and mortgage forbearance may extend traditional default to claim timelines and result in claim rates lower than our historical experience. We have not adjusted these reserves previously recorded in the second and third quarters of 2020, which total $244 million, as they continue to represent our best estimate of the ultimate losses associated with these defaults. Other underwriting and operating expenses in the second quarter were $41 million compared to $42 million in the first quarter. We continue to estimate that other underwriting and operating expenses will be in the range of $170 to $175 million for the full year 2021. Essend Group Limited paid a quarterly cash dividend totaling $19.1 million to shareholders in June and repurchased $18.4 million of stock. Additionally, during the second quarter, Essend Guarantee paid a $100 million dividend to Essend U.S. Holdings. On June 23rd, we closed a Radnor-Re insurance-linked no transaction, which provides $558 million of reinsurance protection on approximately $14 billion of risk in force. This transaction pertains to risk on our new insurance written from August 2020 through March 2021, including the portion of risk written from August 2020 through December 2020, which was not covered previously by our quota share reinsurance agreement. From a PMIRES perspective, after applying the 0.3 factor for COVID-19 defaults, ESSEN guarantees PMIRES sufficiency ratio is strong at 174% with $1.3 billion in excess available assets. Excluding the 0.3 factor, our PMIRES sufficiency ratio remains strong at 163% with $1.2 billion in excess available assets. Now, let me turn the call back over to Mark.
spk02: Thanks, Larry. In closing, we were pleased with our performance for the second quarter as we produced strong earnings and generated excess capital. Our buy, manage, and distribute models operating on all cylinders and confidence in our economic engine is high. Combined with a strong housing environment, our outlook on our business is positive. Finally, we are excited about the progress that we are making with the next generation of S&Edge and its potential to be a game changer in evaluating and pricing credit risk. We continue to believe that combining AI with large quantities of data is where the financial services industry is moving, and we want Essent to be at the forefront of this. Now let's get to your questions. Operator?
spk00: Okay. As a reminder, ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to ask a question, you may do so by pressing star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. Again, that's star one to ask a question. First question, we have Mark DeVries with Barclays.
spk09: Thanks. Mark, where are you seeing the most attractive places to deploy your excess capital today? And what do you need to see to want to get more aggressive repurchasing the stock?
spk02: Hey, Mark. I think, you know, it's a number of things. Taking a step back, I think as we talked about last quarter and again in the transcript, I think it's a measured approach around let's call it capital allocation. So we are still investing capital into the business. We grew 17% year over year, which requires capital. We're making some strategic investments in the ventures part of the funds that we talked about, albeit a small amount. And we've increased the dividend, which is one way to return capital to shareholders. And we announced The buyback, you know, we just announced it last May. The numbers were through June, I think, in a transcript. And as of the other day we looked at it, you know, we've repurchased $50 million. So we're well on our way there. So I don't think it's anything particular that we're looking at, Mark. I think it's continued. These businesses don't get – I know we come in front of you guys every 90 days, but we have a much longer-term perspective. in terms of how we allocate the capital. So again, I think we're going to keep on this approach and continue to look for opportunities, again, both within the business, outside of the business, and obviously continuing to return capital to shareholders. It's a little bit of the best of both worlds. So we're pretty excited about the optionality that we have around capital at this point.
spk09: Okay. Helpful. And next question, what percentage of the business is still coming from the rate card? And for those lenders that haven't moved to the pricing engines, what's behind that? Is it still like a technology systems issue, compliance? And kind of where do you see that going longer term? You expect them to move to the engines?
spk02: That's a pretty good question. I would say right now it's around, for us, it's 70-ish percent is coming through the engine. I think for some, and I mentioned this in the script, I do think some lenders enjoy the pricing power that they have with negotiated cards. over the MIs, but we are in discussions now with two relatively large lenders around building APIs into their systems. And what that's going to allow us to do is compete with the negotiated cards. So when they go to look for an MI price, it's going to be our engine. which, again, keep in mind, Mark, our engine is now 400 factors. So what does that mean? It means when a lender goes for a price, we're combining all the raw credit bureau information with all the mortgage information that we get and then obviously analyzing it via machine learning, which allows us just to run many iterations and obviously learns over time, and we're delivering that price back to the lender in three seconds. We're competing. We will be competing with a static rate card. So we love our chances with that. So I think the technology is moving faster than most people think. We think we're at the forefront of it. And if we can get into those situations where we're competing against a static card, I think we're going to come out very favorable. So, again, we're super excited. again, motivated to keep investing and looking and improving the engine because, again, that's where credit's going. We've said this before. The MI industry is all going to be about credit selection. And it wasn't before. All the pricing was the same. And you've seen it in other industries. You see it in the credit card industry. You see it in auto with Progressive and Geico. And I think we're kind of applying those techniques to to mortgage insurance. Again, it's early. We just rolled it out at the beginning of this year. But, again, if you sit in my seat and have more of a 3-, 5-, 10-year horizon, investing in that type of technology, and as I mentioned in the script, moving the platform to the cloud, which increases your computing power, those really set us up for future success down the road.
spk09: Okay, great. Thank you.
spk00: Thank you. Next, we have Rick Shane with JPMorgan.
spk08: Thanks, guys, for taking my question. Mark, you pointed out that the persistency is trending higher quarter over quarter, and that's obviously a favorable inflection. The reality is that CPRs are still elevated and burnout seems to be taking a little bit longer than folks anticipated. When we think about PMI, it actually increases the incentive for borrowers to refinance versus a borrower who doesn't have PMI. On one hand, that would suggest that burnout would take longer, but I'm actually wondering if that PMI refi incentive actually has pulled forward refinance in your book, and we should see burnout emerge more quickly than the overall market.
spk02: I hope you're right, Rick. I'm not sure about that. I think it's a good thesis, but I would be cautious on that. Again, given where the 10-year, I mean, it bounced back a little bit this morning, but given how low it is, I do think the refinancings will remain elevated. But take a step back, right, and look at it in context, Rick, from our standpoint. the purchase market remains strong. And we think the underpinnings of the purchase market will remain strong, right? I mean, when you think about the demand around millennials, you know, the peak, you know, I think the highest age group is still a cohort is like right around 28 or 29. The first-time homebuyer average is like 31, 32. So we're kind of getting into that sweet spot, and I think it's something like 5%. you know, close to 5 million new potential homeowners come into the market over the next few years. Rates will impact some of that, but rates remain low, even if they go up. And, you know, I know there's all talks about affordability, and that's important. I think the demand is going to really be there. So over time, as rates go up, refinancings will start to dissipate, and I think the book will stick longer. It just – I wouldn't expect it to happen quarter over quarter. So we think it's dropped. Maybe it gets into the mid-60s by the end of the year. But I think longer term, and that's what we said, the positive underpinnings of housing are relatively strong. And I do think that will help continue to allow us to grow the insurance in force. Does that make sense?
spk08: Yeah, look, it totally does. And it's interesting because when I originally framed the question, I thought of it the opposite way in terms of it might extend burnout for you. So it's interesting to get your perspective. Look, the reality is that the fundamentals that are driving high prepayments are favorable for credit. And when you think about the three outcomes for a policy going to maturity, refinancing, or a credit issue, the middle outcome is certainly a better outcome than credit problems.
spk02: I agree. I agree. And remember, and we've talked about this before, is we are, you know, when NIW is elevated, you have to expect that persistency is going to be low. There's no free lunch. So we're talking about industry volumes at historic levels the last two years. It's not surprising that persistency is at such low levels. So I think we're always a little bit more levered to higher rates, Rick. I'd rather see the book – I'd rather see lower NIW and the book grow persistency a little bit higher. That's just better – uh from a cost basis for us uh and you know slow and steady kind of wins the race but you know this is this is the environment we're in and uh i think we're adapting well great hey thank you very much guys sure thank you next we have me here in bathia with bank of america
spk07: Hi.
spk00: Thank you for taking my questions.
spk07: Maybe I'll just start with just a follow-up on that last comment you made, Mark. Just how much of, I guess, as persistency increases, you know, if you get back to your normalized levels, how much of a tailwind on, like, expense ratio is that? Are we talking, like, 1% or are we talking, like, 3%, 4%?
spk02: Again, it's hard to measure an expense ratio here because that's just a calculation based on insurance. I think in terms of nominal costs, particularly it's really you know around the underwriting cost right so we you know we have you know the percentage of us of our originations is a non-delegated so if you're doing $50 billion a year versus $100 billion a year, there's pretty good savings. It's the friction cost of doing all those things. You have term time issues and all those things with customers. This time last summer, you couldn't find an underrated industry. There was such a shortage just because the volume was so high. That's hard on your employees. That's hard on your customers' employees. it's not a sustainable environment. So I think having, and again, when I say levered, I do think the economics are better. You know, again, if we're lower NIW, you know, we could be significantly lower NIW and still end up growing the insurance in force because persistence is high. And I think that's a little underappreciated part of our model. Understood.
spk07: Thank you. And then just maybe broadening the discussion a little bit, just, you know, you've talked a couple of times on previous calls about things you're looking at outside CoreMI and as you think about the business long term. Maybe give us an update on that and maybe just talk about what you're spending your time looking at outside of CoreMI. Are there particular segments or types of businesses that are most interesting?
spk02: Well, I would say first, a lot of the funds that we're invested in, we spend most of our time tying that back to the core business. Think about S&Edge. I mentioned this on one of the previous calls. One of the portfolio companies really helped us. One of the companies helped us think through the machine learning technology and all the things in terms of multiple uses of data and merging credit bureau with other information. You know, that was learned through one of the portfolio companies. So a lot of this is just how do we tie it back to improve the core business, right, technology initiatives around moving the business to the cloud. In terms of new initiatives, you know, that's also, you know, in terms of newer investments outside the business, that's kind of a nice-to-have. That's not necessarily the driver of it, but we clearly think – that some of the skills that we have around capital management, buy, manage, and distribute, understanding consumer credit, they're applicable outside of mortgage insurance. And remember, mortgage insurance is, it's only so big. So if you think about the industry, it's right around a trillion three, a trillion 350 at the end of this quarter. We're approximately 15% of that. You know, trees don't grow to the sky. and I think you run the risk of, you know, if you have a lot of capital, you just start kind of keeping in the core business. Clearly there's the return aspect to shareholders, we have the ability to do both. And I think our ability to kind of apply capital to grow and grow outside of MI, you know, I think is real while we're still maintaining redistribution to the shareholders. So, again, we're not in a hurry to do it per se, but we do think these skills are applicable. And I think longer term, And remember, I have a 3-, 5-, 10-year horizon. I think Essent will be more valuable to shareholders in the long term by growing. And, you know, by just returning all the capital to all the capital of the shareholders, I think that looks good analytically. I think it puts shareholders in long-term danger. I really do. Just because you kind of shrink the company and you shrink the equity base. And remember, what we've always said, credit kills these businesses. So, you know, bigger... It's better, and capital begets opportunities. So, you know, again, we have a process around this on the investment side. We're very disciplined. And remember, we built this business from scratch. We built SNRE from scratch. So we understand as we look at other businesses outside of MI kind of some of the fundamental things it takes to to build businesses. So, again, this is a long-term perspective here, and I wanted to kind of get that out there as people talk about capital distribution and bringing capital back to the shareholders, which, by the way, is extremely important. It's just I think our message is we have the ability to have a measured approach around capital allocation.
spk07: Right. No, I appreciate that. And look, after you made all those comments, you still instituted the buyback when you thought it was appropriate. So I think shareholders get it. Okay. I will leave it there. Thank you so much. You're welcome.
spk00: Thank you. Next question, we have Boss George with KBW.
spk06: Hey, good morning. I'm curious if you said this in your prepared remarks. So what was the default to claim rate this quarter?
spk05: Larry, the default rate at the end of the quarter, is that the number?
spk06: No, the default to claim rate that you would use for new notices this quarter.
spk05: Oh, okay. There was no change, Bose, from what we assumed prior quarter. You know, the initial default to claim rate is still in around that 9% level that we've historically experienced.
spk06: Okay, great. Thanks. And then can you just talk about the cadence for the margin over the next few quarters, you know, just in terms of the base average premium number? Is that kind of the one basis point decline quarter level?
spk02: Yeah, both. I think we're staying still at the end of the year, kind of in that 40-ish range for the year. Could exit a little bit lower, but, you know, we are starting to see a little bit of a flattening out. Remember, there's a lot of moving parts there, and I know everyone – thinks through singles cancellation as one additive to it. But the reinsurance cost is obviously a big cost to that, and that has started to level out as most of the book is reinsured. So again, 40-ish to the end of the year, probably could exit a little bit lower, but I think the premium levels are relatively stable at this point.
spk06: Okay, thanks. Actually, one more just on the regulatory side with, you know, the changes of the FHFA, the risk-sharing market, do you think that that could get more traction?
spk02: I'm sorry, risk-sharing in terms of the GSD risk-sharing?
spk06: No, just the, you know, the other business that you guys do, the ACES and the, you know, where you invest in the – Yeah, yeah.
spk02: Okay, yeah, yeah. I mean, we've been pretty active. Freddie Mac has been active the whole time in the market. So, you know, we actually wrote the most business last year than we've ever been there. And it's a pretty good start this year, too. So mostly Freddie. So if Fannie enters the market, certainly that could expand it. But, you know, I think that remains to be seen. I haven't heard much about that from Fannie Mae at this point.
spk06: Okay, great. Thanks. You're welcome.
spk00: Thank you. Next question, we have Doug Harter with Credit Suisse.
spk03: I know it's relatively early still, but, you know, any early read on kind of how Essent Edge is performing in terms of picking, you know, picking credit quality and, you know, kind of delivering that better credit quality as you would expect?
spk02: Yeah, don't think of in terms of better credit quality, Doug. Think about in terms of optimizing premium levels. So, again, the example could be, you know, the 700 FICO that our score will score them higher than 700. So we'll give them a slightly higher. lower premium, but we would expect kind of a better credit loss. So the unit economics of that loan would be better. So I think longer term, I think the impact on the portfolio, and again, it's on the margin. So it's all relative to where the industry is pricing. And our view is, you know, we've talked about it before, longer term, you know, we're one of six, our share is kind of in that 15 to 16. So how do we optimize that premium over you know, over the long run. It's a game of inches. So if our average premium is 40 now and we can get to 42-ish or higher with slightly lower losses, then that's going to roll down to the ROE. So, again, I think it also allows us just to select the credits we want. And I still think that's hard for the industry to grasp as we see, you know, we see certain, you know, we've heard certain lenders talk to our competitors where our competitors are still pushing their rate cards over the engines. That tells me they don't have the technology to compete. It really does. So if you're still looking and saying you'd rather price off of two or four factors versus 400 plus, that doesn't seem like you're moving in the right direction. So, again, I think for us, and more is always better in the mortgage industry, and it's just not the truth. Again, one of six. There's a certain price level for this industry that if you move below it, then you'll gain share, but then you'll be quickly matched. There's a quick competitor response. So, again, our view is let's take our 15% or 16% that we can get, optimize it, and move on.
spk03: And I guess as you're thinking about you know, optimizing unit economics. I guess, are you looking to kind of optimize the, you know, the persistency of fluorescent edge as well? You know, how do you think about, you know, that component?
spk02: Yeah, absolutely. There's a prepayment component to that. So we certainly will, you know, extending the life is a big thing. So yeah, I think it's, so a few things on just technology in terms of unit economics, right? So we've talked a little bit about edge, which helped us optimize kind of the premium and clearly around the credit losses. there is the potential to expand that, right? So SMH, when you're ingesting that much credit bureau information along with the mortgage information, it's essentially an underwriting engine at that point. So I wouldn't be surprised for us to continue to develop that to help automate some of the regular underwriting that we do today, which, again, is going to help cost down the road. We have a number of initiatives underway to help our customers have much more of a self-service experience, which, again, makes it more efficient, easier to use for the client. And, again, I think down the road that helps from an expense standpoint. And we talked about, you know, kind of the affiliate reinsurance around the tax rate. So I think when we think about how we run the business day-to-day, we think in terms of unit economics. So what steps can we take? to improve premiums, credit losses, clearly reinsuring the book has helped a lot around credit losses. So we kind of have like a little plan around each one of them. And then day in and day out, that's how we go about trying to execute that.
spk03: Great. Thank you, Max.
spk00: Thank you. And our last question will be from Ryan Gilbert with BGIG.
spk01: Hi. Thanks. Good morning. First question, Mark, just going back to your comments around overall industry market share, looking through that NIW data and comparing it to some of the estimates out there around 2Q21 total originations, it looks like there was maybe a pickup in share for the overall industry in 2Q, so PMI is taking a bigger piece of the overall pie. On the one hand, it's within the realm of normal quarterly fluctuations, but On the other hand, given really strong homebuyers' appreciation, maybe more first-time homebuyers, you might expect the PMI percentage of total originations to increase in the quarters and years ahead. So, I'd just love your thoughts on what you're seeing on the market and if you think that 15% of the total pie can increase going forward.
spk02: Yeah, it's a good question, Ryan. I think you have to break it out between purchase and refi. So the penetration on refinances is always much lower on MI versus purchase. And our purchase share went from 62% in the first quarter to 82% in the second. And I think last month was 90% purchase, which obviously has a higher penetration. From that standpoint, yeah, you certainly can see the overall penetration go up. And it gets back to one of my earlier comments in response to one of the questions, and that just has to help persistency, right? I mean, so as it gets to be more purchased and less refinanced, our overall volume actually could be lower per se, but the book would end up growing a little bit because the book's a little bit stickier, so it ends up growing a little bit more than in kind of a heavy refi environment.
spk01: Okay, got it. On premium rate, just going back to your response to a prior question, it sounds like with potentially premiums flattening out over the course of 2021, do you think we could be hitting the last year of premium rate compression, or should we anticipate lower premiums for the foreseeable future?
spk02: Again, some of it is just working. It's just math working its way through the book. So if you know, the premium levels on new business are lower than they were four years ago. So, clearly, and that's kind of the pre-tax rate change. So, that's clearly working its way through the book. So, I actually think you'll continue to see premiums decrease, but not at this, you know, I think it's at a much slower rate. They're clearly getting to a trough period. I don't know if it's right now, but I do think it'll, you know, It'll start to drop, you know, at some point. But I do think, you know, again, don't forget that part of this is because of the reinsurance that we're spending. The whole industry has, you know, I would say material reinsurance costs embedded in that net premium rate, which have really increased. The whole industry really only started reinsuring back in like 2018. So it's kind of working its way through premium rates now, Ryan. And so the premium compression actually looks a lot worse than it is when you think about it. So we don't get too caught up in that. And again, look at the big picture, Ryan. This is a business that had operating margins of 73% for the first six months of the year, And we generated cash flow of $340 million. You don't measure that in premium basis points. So I understand where people are coming from. But at some point, you've got to take the, you know, again, that's what's allowed us. to have this excess capital position and put us in such kind of a catbird seat in terms of our ability to allocate capital around potential new businesses, return capital to the shareholders with dividends and share repurchases. So, again, $41.39 at a market like this, we'll continue to enjoy these margins.
spk01: Yeah, all good points. Just one housekeeping question for Larry. Did I hear you correctly saying that you did not change your reserve assumptions or you did not change your reserve levels for 2020?
spk05: That's correct. Just to remind everybody, we assumed a 7% claim rate assumption on the new default notices we received in the second and third quarters of 2020. and recorded reserves of $244 million for those two quarters. So we continue to hold those reserves and made no adjustments to them in the second quarter.
spk01: Okay. And it looks like there was a $15 million favorable development in the second quarter. Was that related to pre-2020 reserves?
spk05: It was related to the pre-COVID period, which is the Q1 of 2020 and prior. And then also in the fourth quarter of 2021, we had moved back to our historical methodology. So it's really the fourth quarter of 2021 and the first quarter of 2021 and prior periods.
spk02: Think of it like three cohorts, right? You had the pre-COVID on a reserve model. You had the second and third quarter kind of special reserve where we froze it. And then we remember for the fourth quarter of last year, we went back. to our normal reserve model. So a lot of the changes are on the first and third part of that, where the second, we've kept it constant, really for the reason is that we continue to see progress, but only 80% of the second quarter 20 cohort has cured, and we have 93% in the model. And part of that is forbearance is still around, the foreclosure moratorium is getting extended. So You know, we actually said back last May when we first did, or August when we booked it, we said it would be 12 to 18 months before we'd start to really see a kind of clarity, and it's kind of playing out that way.
spk01: Okay, great. Thank you. Appreciate all the details. Sure.
spk00: And I know for the questions, I'm turning the call back over to the speakers. Chris?
spk02: Thanks, Brian. Thanks, everyone, for joining. I know Friday in August, exciting times to talk about MI. But thanks for your participation, and I hope everyone has a great weekend.
spk00: Thank you, everyone. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
Disclaimer