U.S. Mortgage Insurance Perspectivess2.q4cdn.com/240635966/files/doc_presentations/GNW USMI...

U.S. Mortgage Insurance PerspectivesInvestor Materials

February 10, 2012

Company Confidential ©2011 Genworth Financial, Inc. All rights reserved. ©2012 Genworth Financial, Inc. All rights reserved.

Forward-Looking StatementsThis presentation contains certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements may be identified by words such as “expects,” “intends,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “will” or words of similar meaning and include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the outlook for Genworth Financial, Inc.’s (Genworth) future business and financial performance. Forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions, which are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially due to global political, economic, business, competitive, market, regulatory and other factors and risks, including those discussed in the Appendix, as well as in the risk factors section of Genworth’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on February 25, 2011 and Genworth’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, filed with the SEC on November 7, 2011. Genworth undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.

Selected Operating Performance Measures

1

Selected Operating Performance Measures

All financial data as of December 31, 2011 unless otherwise noted. For additional information, please see Genworth’s fourth quarter of 2011 earnings release and financial supplement posted at genworth.com.

For important information regarding selected operating performance measures, see the Appendix.

All references in this presentation to return on equity (ROE) should be read on a 24 percent levered basis unless otherwise noted.

February 10, 2012U.S. Mortgage Insurance Perspectives Investor Materials

This presentation should be used in conjunction with the accompanying audio or call transcript.

Agenda U.S. Mortgage Insurance (U.S. MI) Portfolio Overview

Loss Development

Change In Expectation/Reserve Adequacy

New Delinquencies

Embedded Value & Claims Paying Ability

New Business Quality

Capital Strategy

Strategic Options

Drivers Of Return To Profitability

2February 10, 2012U.S. Mortgage Insurance Perspectives Investor Materials

Key Messages Risk Discipline Entering The Cycle Resulted In Differentiated Portfolio Mix With Go Forward Implications

Changes In Reserve Expectation Impacted 2010 & 2011 Results… Current Expectation Is New Delinquencies Should Drive Losses Going Forward

Risk To Capital Elevated But Claims Paying Ability Is Sound

New Business Adds Positive Economics And Benefits Claims Paying Ability

Multiple Factors Drive A Return To Profitability

Evaluated All Strategic Options & Following A Planned Path


10%

15%

20%

Comparison Of U.S. MI Peers Through Cycle

Industry4

GNW

Delta

Peers5A B C D GNW

Key Performance Metrics1 Industry Primary Delq. Rates

ARM2 (< 5 Yrs) 9% 5% 8% 5% 2%

Alt-A2 9% 10% 15% 9% 3%

Bulk RIF 12% 9% 12% 7% 2%

Geographic2

California 8% 12% 7% 6% 6%

0%

5%

Jun-06 Jun-07 Jul-08 Jul-09 Aug-10 Sep-11

February 10, 2012 4U.S. Mortgage Insurance Perspectives Investor Materials

1Data Sourced From Publicly Disclosed Information Available From

Applicable SEC Filings Of Industry Peers as of 9/30/11. There Can Be

No Assurance Each Company Categorized Insured Loans In Similar

Terms.2Based On Primary RIF3Pre-Tax Operating Basis4Excludes GNW; Radian Added December 2008; UG Excluded

February 2011; PMI Excluded September 20115GNW, Peer A & Peer D Are As Of 4Q11; Peer B Is As Of 3Q11; Peer C

Is As Of 2Q11

DeltaCalifornia 8% 12% 7% 6% 6%

Florida 7% 8% 9% 8% 7%

RTC Combined 22.2 NA NA 108.5 28.8 Flagship 20.3 21.4 58.1 NA 32.9

Avg. Res/Delq 21.8 23.5 23.0 23.0 28.3($K)

12+ Delq (Age) 49% 54% 55% n/a 45%

Net Loss ($B) (4.5) (3.3) (2.8) (2.3)3 (1.8)(3Q07-4Q11)

40%23%

17%

4%6%

8%

Composition Of Flow Business By Vintage

2008

20092010

26.7 2.4

2011

Breakdown By Vintage Observations

•Flow 2005-2007 Books:

Reserves Are Disproportionate To RIF

Flat To Negative Home Price Appreciation --Lower Refinancing Options Impacting Cure Rates

Underperformance Primarily Driven By Specialty Product & Sand States1

($B)


14% 11%

9% 13%

11%19%

25%

40%

% Of RIF Reserves

2007

2006

2005

2004 &Prior

1Sand States Include CA, FL, AZ, NV

•Flow 2008 Book:

’07 Specialty Product Overhang

Collateral Improvement From New Guidelines In 2H08

•Flow 2009-2011 Books:

New Books Performing Better Than Expected In Challenging Environment

Delinquencies By Aging CategoryPrimary Delinquencies

102,800

115,430122,279

107,104101,759 98,613 95,395

89,018 87,464 88,020

49%

33%

47%

32%

47%

30%

46%

27%

42%

26%

38%

27%

36%

26%

35%

24%

31%

24%

28%

26%

4-11 Payments

≤3 Payments

87,007

29%

26%

2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11 3Q11 4Q11

Reserve Strengthening While Delinquencies Trend Lower

Flow Average Reserve Per Delq ($K)

22.9 20.0 18.9 19.2 19.5 20.4 24.3 25.4 29.2 28.8

18%

49%

21% 23% 27% 32% 35% 38% 41% 45% 46%≥12 Payments

29.1

45%


Incurred Losses Are Driven By 2 Factors1 Change In Expectation Of Claims On Current Delinquent Inventory

(Leads To Reserve Updates)

Net Cures & Aging May Be Leading Indicator To Reserve Change

3Q/4Q10 -- Modifications/Rescissions (~$435MM)

2Q11 -- Experience (~$100MM) & Future Expectation (~$200MM)

2 New Delinquencies

February 10, 2012 7

Drive Incurred Losses When Experience Matches Expectation

Primary Driver Of 3Q11 & 4Q11 Incurred Losses

U.S. Mortgage Insurance Perspectives Investor Materials

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Reserving -- Back Testing1

Dec ’09 Cohort -- Cumulative Cure Rates1 Observations

Evaluation Of Cure & Claim Activity On Static Population

Ever To Date Cures Building Towards Current Reserve Expectations

~20K Loans Remain Unresolved After 2 Years

Rescinded Loans Removed From Population … Cures Reflect

Current Cure Expectation

0%

10%

20%

2Q10 4Q10 2Q11 4Q11

Cure Rate Claim Rate % Remaining

Historical Experience In Line With Current Reserve Expectation

1Analysis Excludes Redefaults Of Cures


Population … Cures Reflect Modifications & Self Cures

Illustrative Only: Single Population Of Loan Seasoning Through Specific Economic Environment. Future Composition Of Delinquencies & Economic Conditions Could Drive Different Results

2Q11 3Q11 4Q11

$100MM - Observed Experience

+$200MM - Future Expected Deterioration

$300MM - Total Reserve Factor Update

Update To 2Q11 Reserve Actions1

2Q11 Reserve Factor Updates

$200MM Future Expected Deterioration

Reserve Increase For Future Expected Deterioration

Estimated Utilization Of $200MM Reserve Increase

Remaining Provision

Utilization Slowed In 4Q11 As Cure Activity Improved … ExpectContinued Deterioration Within Estimated Level

$200

$(100) $(20)

$100 $80$200


22

242

541

847

734

567

Investigations

Claims Reviews

Workouts

$MM

Reserves -- Loss Mitigation Impacts1

Exceeded 2011 Target Of $400-500MM

•Loss Mitigation Through The Cycle

Rescissions Activity Through 2Q10

Workouts Ramped In 2010

Claims Mitigation Increase In ’11 & ’12As Claims Come Through Pipeline

•Loss Mitigation Expectations300-400

583

15845

35

73

541

449

2009 2010 2011 2012E

Loss Mitigation Savings Reported As The Reserve Release On Delinquent Loans Or Claim Reduction On Short Sale & Claim Mitigation Activity

Flow Workouts Continue But Volume Decreases As Delinquent Opportunities Decline/Age

2011 Actual Workouts ~18,000

2012 Estimated Workouts ~13,000

Loss Mitigation Delivers Continued Benefit

300-400


2005–2008 Books Peaked In 4Q09

New Delinquencies -- Bad Books Run Off2

3000

4000

5000

# Of New Delinquencies

Burn-Out Is Gradual But Meaningful… Historical Seasonal Drop In 1Q

February 10, 2012 11

0

1000

2000

1/05 7/05 1/06 7/06 1/07 7/07 1/08 7/08 1/09 7/09 1/10 7/10 1/11 7/11

Month

2005 2006 2007 2008


12/11

New Flow Delqs Slowing Since 3Q09 -- Seasonality In 3Q10 & 3Q11

Flow New Delinquencies -- Qtrly Trends2

23,354

26,487

30,872

36,221 34,955

32,367

36,100

33,609

29,323

24,871 26,008

24,600

22,652

20,353

22,428 21,101

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000 HAMP

Other Mods

Self-Cures

1st Time Delq

Re-Defaults

1

New Delinquency / Re-Delinquency Trends Favorable

1Home Affordable Modification Program

February 10, 2012 12

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11 3Q11 4Q11


Annual New Flow Delinquencies (K)

117

137

105

87

~70

Flow New Delinquencies -- Annual Trends2

Problem Vintages Burnout & New Books Favorable Performance

81103

2009-2011

2005-2008

2004 &Prior

Expectation In 2012 Supported By Trends & Macro Economics

% Increase (Decrease) 17% (23)% (17)% ~(20)%

36 34 27 22 ~20

8178

65~50

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012E


78207

435300

2633

Summary: Annual Loss Drivers

Incurred Losses ($MM)

$1,325$1,491

Prior Years Have Reserve Adjustments & Aging

952785

2010 2011 2012E

News Net Aging Reserve Update Other

Current Expectations: Reserves Are Adequate -- 2012 Losses Should Primarily Be New Delinquency Driven … With Seasonal Variation

1Other Includes Bulk, Pool, Reinsurance & Loss Adjustment Expenses Partially Offset By Captive Benefits

1


Claims Paying FrameworkKey ConsiderationsClaims Paying Resources

($B)

0.6Captive Trusts

3.7

2.7

0.4MIC Shares1

•Statutory Surplus ~$800MM At 12/31/11

•Claims Paying Analysis Going Forward Influenced By:

Investments -- Quality

Modeling Approach & Assumptions

Loss Expectations

12/31/2011

1MIC Shares: ~$400MM Statutory Value Of Genworth MI Canada, Inc. (MIC) Common Stock (TSX: MIC)

2.7Invested Assets

New Business Levels & Margin


U.S. MI Investment Portfolio

58%

3%

1.9

3.1

97% Of Portfolio Investment Grade

Portfolio Average Duration 4 Years

No Single Issuer Reflects >2% Of Portfolio Value

Exposure To Financials Of ~7%

Cash & Short-Term Investments

~16% Of Portfolio Cash & Short-Term Holdings

($B)

Quality Assessment Of InvestmentsGov’t Bonds

Corporates

0.5

11%

26%

2%

GLIC Preferred1

1Genworth Life Insurance Company2Reflects Statutory Value Of Investment In MIC Common Stock Shares Eliminated For GAAP Financial Reporting Purposes

Exposure To Financials Of ~7%

Proactively Managing Liquidity To Meet Claims Obligations

MIC Common2

Affiliate Investments

Tax ExemptMunis

Asset-Backed SecuritiesPreferred/LPs

0.3

0.4

0.7$15MM Annual Dividend

Traded On Toronto Stock Exchange/Dividends


Modeling Analytics

Volatility In Economic Conditions Drives Need To Evaluate Business Results Across Range Of Expected Outcomes

Econometric Modeling Challenge

Break-Down In Historical Relationships Between Changes In Home Prices/Unemployment With Ultimate Claims Development

As A Result, We Forecast Using Single Macro Economic Path While Adjusting Claim Rates On Existing Delinquencies & New Adjusting Claim Rates On Existing Delinquencies & New Delinquencies

3rd Party (Global Insights) Baseline Macro Economic Forecast

Manage Financial Profile & Operating Metrics Across Expected Outcomes

Validate Model Methods And Results Through External Analysis


Single Economic Path Used Across Expected Range… Provided By Global Insights

5-6 Pts. Of Additional Home Price Decline With Recovery Beginning 2H12, Peak To Trough Of ~25%

Unemployment Above 9% Through Early 2013, Followed By Slow Jobs Recovery

Genworth Modeling AssumptionsEconomic & Production Assumptions

2011 2012E 2013E 2014E

Flow NIW ($B) ~10 10-16 20 28

Base Expectation Further Deterioration

Reserves Adequate For Future Claims Activity On Existing Delinquencies

~13K Modifications In 2012

~21% New Delinquency Roll To Claims Slightly Higher Than Current Experience … Improves Over Time

•~$100MM Reserve Increase On Existing Delinquencies

•Deterioration In New Delinquency Roll Rate To Claim (2 Point Increase In 2012 & 2013)

•2012 NIW Reduced By ~$4B

Flow NIW ($B) ~10 10-16 20 28


Risk To Capital Corridor

Independent Third Party Reviews

Value Of New Business

Risk To Capital Levels

Type Of Risk In Portfolio

Strength Of Balance Sheet

Reserve Adequacy

Statutory Solvency+

Regulators Looking At More Than RTC Test

BusinessStatutory Solvency

Ability To Pay Claims

Where We Are In Cycle

+

Comprehensive Stakeholder Review Can Provide Basis For Waiver & Ability To Continue To Write Profitable New Business

Parental Support


Embedded Value Concepts1

Portfolio Embedded Value

Aggregation Of Future Cash Flows From Existing Portfolio Under Runoff

Discounted Cash Flows From Future Premiums Less Future Claims & Expenses

Inclusive Of Existing Unpaid Claim & Unearned Premium Reserves

Consistent Approach To Premium Deficiency Analysis

Enterprise Embedded Value2

1Reviewed By External Party For Reasonableness Of Concepts & Approach. These Definitions Of Embedded Value Are Defined In Reference Of The Amounts On The Tables On The Following Page. The Purpose Of Providing These Estimates Is To Provide Insights Regarding Expected Future Cash Flows For Genworth’s Operations, & Do Not Reflect Future Distributable Cash Flows From Genworth’s (MI) Statutory Entities. Our Definitions Of Embedded Value May Not Be Comparable To That Used By Other Companies. In Developing The Estimates Underlying The Embedded Value Calculations, We Rely On Models & Significant Assumptions That Affect The Magnitude & Timing Of The Estimated Future Premium, Claim & Expense Cash Flows. The Future Premium, Claim & Expense Cash Flow Estimates May Prove To Differ Significantly From The Actual Cash Flows That Emerge Due To The Significant Amount Of Uncertainty Inherent In The Economy & In Particular Within The Housing Market.

2Enterprise Embedded Value Performed As Runoff Calculation Excluding The Impact Of New Business But Assuming The Immediate, Full Value Of GAAP Equity.

Enterprise Embedded Value

Portfolio Embedded Value Plus GAAP Equity As Of 12/31/2011

Includes Other Cash Flows From Non-Flow Mortgage Insurance

Supports Sufficiency Of Claims Paying Resources


Embedded Value -- CTR1 Assumptions

Vintage ETD2 CTR Ultimate CTR

2004 & Prior3 2 ~2-4

2005 8 ~12-14

2006 11 ~18-20

2007 10 ~21-23

1CTR - Claims Termination Rate Represents Number Of Claims Out Of 100 Policies Written2Ever To Date32004 & Prior = 1995-2004 Book Years

2007 10 ~21-23

2008 3 ~11-13

2009 0 ~1

2010 0 ~1

2011 0 ~1


Embedded Value CalculationsFlow Portfolio Embedded Value1 Enterprise Embedded Value1

<=042 05-08 09-11 Total

Future Premiums3 200 1,280 550 2,030

Future Claims3 (260) (2,810) (40) (3,110)

Future Expenses3 (30) (230) (70) (330)

Future Cash Flows (90) (1,760) 440 (1,410)

Reserves4 250 2,000 70 2,320

Portfolio Embedded Value 160 240 510 910

Total

GAAP Equity 1,130

Flow Portfolio Embedded Value 910

Other Cash Flows5 (130)

Enterprise Embedded Value 1,910

($MM), Discounted ($MM) Discounted

Portfolio Embedded Value 160 240 510 910

Ultimate CTR 2.5% 16.0% 0.8% 5.6%

Original Policies Written (K) 2,408 789 129 3,326

Ultimate Claims (K) 59 126 1 186

Enterprise Embedded Value 1,910

1The Terms “Portfolio Embedded Value” & “Enterprise Embedded Value” Are Defined On A Previous Slide2Includes Loans Originated From 1995-20043Estimated Cash Flows Reflect Flow Business Only & Are From Genworth’s Internal Projection Models. These Amounts Assume No New Business Written After 2011, Are Net Of Cessions To Captive Reinsurance, & Are Discounted At 4% Per Annum Discount Rate Based On Expected Investment Yields. Expenses Assumed At ~ 12% Of Premiums Consistent With Runoff Portfolio Analytic.

4Reserves Include Unpaid Claims, IBNR, Loss Adjustment Expenses, & Unearned Premiums, & Are Net Of Cessions To Captive Reinsurance5Other Cash Flows Include Non-Flow Business, Assumed & Ceded Reinsurance


Borrower Equity 10%

Example: $200,000 Home Purchase

90% Loan To Value (LTV)

Primary MI22.5%

(MI Coverage 25%)

RiskIn-Force (RIF)

IIF $180,000

X Average Rate .54%

= 1st Year Premium 972

~4.4 Year Average Life 4,300

Loss Ratio 22%

Expense Ratio 29%

Example

$20,000

$45,000

How We Make Money

Originator/ Investor 67.5%

Expense Ratio 29%

Underwriting Income 2,100

Investment Income (4%) 600

Taxes (35%) 950

Operating Income 1,750

Levered ROE: 20%+

InsuranceIn-Force (IIF)

$135,000


100%

200%

2005-2008 Book Years

(67% Risk In Force)

Bad Book Vs. Dynamic Good BookPrior Risks Today

Certain "Exotic" Products (Alt-A, A Minus)

Core Products

Stable Pricing History

25-35% Base Rate ��

Limited Risk Adders

Higher Gross & Net Pricing

Ris

kP

rice

Loss Ratio Comparison1

67% Of RIF

0%

2004 & Prior Book Years

(14% Risk In Force)

2009-2011 Book Years

(19% Risk In Force)

20%+ New Business ROE

Captive Reinsurance

No Excess Of Loss

High % Delegated U/W

Low % Delegated U/W

Pri

ce

En

vir

on

men

t

Early StageDelinquencies

2010 Vintage~135 Delqs.

Heavy Regulatory Scrutiny

Buyback Demands

Limited Regulatory Enforcement

Limited “Skin In The Game”

19% Of RIF

14% Of RIF


1Gross Flow Excluding Reinsurance Impacts

Changing Portfolio CompositionCharacteristicsNIW Compared To Lapse

Avg. Cede 1% 21%

Avg. Rate-Core, Net 0.57% 0.42%

Avg. LTV 90 92%

’09-’11NIW

2011Prepays/Cancels

Higher Price For Lower Risk

Reduced Stacked Risk Factors

Minimal Captive Cede

No Exotic Products

Highest Credit (FICO) Quality In 15 Years

Older Business Being Replaced By Higher Quality New Insurance At A Higher Price

Core Excludes 100% LTV, A Minus, & Alt-A

Avg. LTV 90 92%

Avg. Cover 22% 24%

Avg. FICO 756 725

% Core ~100% 88%

% Owner Occupied 98% 95%

15 Years


15%

20%

25%

Performance By Book Year

Expected Pricing Loss Ratio

•2009-2011 Books Performing Well Within Loss Ratio Expectations

•Seasoning Through Worse Than Average Economic Environment

•Favorable Loan Performance On The New Books Indicate The Successful Changes In:

ETD Loss Ratios By Book Year Observations

0%

5%

10%

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

’09-’11 Books Performing Better Than Pricing ExpectationsDespite A Challenging Environment

2009

2010

Changes In:

Lender Selection/Management

Improved Underwriting Practices

Credit Policy

More Robust Pricing2011


Life Of Book

2009 Book Actual vs Pricing

Premium

Losses

Expenses

Underwriting Income

Levered ROE

$174

22%

29%

$84

20%+

$236

10%

38%

$125

31%

Higher Persistency

Favorable Loss Performance

Unfavorable Pricing Expenses

Book Smaller Than Long Run Average

Drove Expense Actions

($MM)

ActualPricing Comments

Levered ROE 20%+ 31%Drove Expense Actions

Loss Experience Offsets Small Book Size Expenses

Assumptions Book Size $7.4B Monthly Premium Rate 55 bps Pricing Average Life At 4.4 Years … Actual Life Estimated At 5.7 years Pricing -- Estimates At Origination Actual – Performance Through 3Q11 & Remaining Life Forecast 35% Tax Rate Debt To Capital Ratio Of 24%


Good Book Is GrowingSince 2009 -- Percentage Of Profitable Books Is Rising

Insurance In-Force ($B) Cumulative Gross Margin1 ($MM)

18.4

25.5

~37

196

~285

Recent Vintages Forecast To Produce ROE > 20%

2009 2010 2011 2012E% OfBook 7% 14% 22% 28%

1Gross Margin = Premiums Less Incurred Losses

2009 2010 2011 2012E

10.7

27

93


68 79

190 154

Maximize Profitability With New Production

FHA1 Single-Family

Private MI

($B)

2012 ObservationsMarket Size Forecast

2011 2012ELong Term

Originations Pressured As LaborMarket Weighs On Potential Buyers … Pent Up Consumer Demand

Continued MI Purchase PenetrationImprovement … Currently At ’04-’05 Levels

Market Share Lift With Competitors

1Federal Housing Administration

2012 FHA Based On Company Estimate

Lifetime NI Contribution ($MM)

Term

Originations 1,300 940 1,400

MI Penetration 5.2% 8.4% 12%

MI Market Size 68 79 170

Genworth Share ~15% ~18% ~16%

Genworth NIW ($MM) 10 15 27

110 160 300

Long Term Observations

Market Share Lift With Competitors Exiting Business

Market Fundamentals Return To Historical Levels

Typical Book Year ContributingSignificant Net Income


Drivers Of A Return To Profitability Burnout Of 2005-2008 Books

Reserves Are Adequate … Incurred Losses Driven By New Delinquencies

RIF & Performance Of New Books Outweighs Bad Vintages

Originations Market Recovers With The Housing Market

MI Penetration Returns To Historical Rates

Drivers Suggest Opportunity To Return To ProfitabilityDuring 2013

MI Penetration Returns To Historical Rates

Genworth Maintains “Fair Share” Of MI Market … Within Risk Disciplines & Learnings From Cycle

No Double Dip In U.S. Housing Market

No Material Global Economic Downturn


Capital Strategy

Risk To Capital Ratio X:1

27.530.728.8

32.9

Regulatory Capital Position Maintaining Capital Flexibility

•25:1 Waivers

Waivers Or No Action In Place From 44 States

50 State Production Flexibility Maintained

•Contingency Plans In Place With GRMAC2; Requires GSE Approval

Currently Writing Business In 5 States: OH,

3Q11 3Q114Q11E 4Q11E

Aggregate GMICO1

4Q Risk To Capital Is An Estimate Due To Timing Of Filing Of Statutory Financial Statements

Currently Writing Business In 5 States: OH, KS, ID, MO, FL

•Discussions On Potential Alternative Structures

1Genworth Mortgage Insurance Company 2Genworth Residential Mortgage Assurance Corporation


Actively Solicit Waivers From States To Continue Writing From Flagship After Breaching Risk To Capital Threshold

For States That Do Not Grant Waivers, Place Production From That State In Stacked Entity

Balance Of Production Continues To Be Written From Flagship

Sufficient Capital To Support Approximately One Year Of

Key Considerations

Current State

GRMACWriter Of

Non-Waiver States

FlagshipSufficient Capital To Support Approximately One Year Of New Business Capacity Nationwide -- Depending On New Volume Levels

GRMAC Can Be Used With GSE Approval

Currently 5 States Are Being Written Out Of GRMAC

Conclusion

As Flagship Is Pressured From Risk To Capital Perspective, Move To Writing All 50 States From Stacked Entity

GRMAC


Options For Mortgage Insurance Business Maintain Ongoing Operations

Continue To Write New Business … Adds Positive Economics

Maintains “Options” In The Future

Runoff

Cease Writing New Business But Continue To Service Existing Books

Can Be Company Managed Or Regulatory Driven

1

2

Can Be Company Managed Or Regulatory Driven

Spin Off/Sell Mortgage Insurance Operations

Potentially Not Viable In Short Term

Regulatory Hurdles

Potential To Lose Value Of Deferred Tax Assets

3


Continue To Write New Business With Profitable Returns Generates Additional Capital Over Time Which Adds To The Ability To Pay Claims In An Expected Or Stress Scenario

Deploying Available Capital For New Business Incrementally Builds Claims-Paying Ability

Minimizes Potential Negative Implications For Other Insurance Businesses

Preserves All Options & Residual Value Of Mortgage Insurance Business With A Bolstered Capital Base

Many Proposals For Restructuring U.S. Mortgage Insurance Finance System Favor Private Sector

Option 1: Maintain Ongoing Operations

Solutions


Option II: RunoffWe Believe That Under Right Circumstances, A Management-Sponsored, Solvent Runoff Is Possible, But Regulatory Approval As To Proposed Capital Adequacy Is Critical

Would Generally Not Trigger Event Of Default Provisions, In Indentures & Credit Agreements

Ceasing New Business Eliminates Future Premium Income, Which Reduces Capital Support Of The Runoff Business

For A Runoff, Regulators Typically Require Solvency & Claims-Paying Ability Under Stress Scenarios - Which Is Not Necessarily Required For Ongoing Business

During Runoff Period, Regulator Retains Authority To Require Additional Capital

Placing Mortgage Insurance Into Runoff Without Regulatory Buy-In Could Cause The Regulator To Act: Require Capital; Shift Claims Payouts, Limit Flexibility … Or In Worst Case, Seizure

Regulatory Intervention Can Have Multiple Negative Implications For A Multi-Line Insurer: Other Regulators, Ratings, New Business Impact & Capital Management


Option III: Spin Off/Sale

Despite Ongoing New Business Generation, Regulator Would Likely Require Solvency & Claims-Paying Ability Under Stress Scenarios Due To The Removal Of Parent Company As A Potential Future Funding Source

If Capital Deemed Inadequate In Stress Test Scenario, Regulator Will Likely Require Additional Capital Or Refuse To Approve The Change Of Control Resulting From The Spinoff

Equity & Debt Investors May Require Additional Capital Contributions Before Investing In Entity Being Spun Off

Spin Off

Potential Inability To Utilize Net Operating Losses (NOLs)

Regulatory Approval Dependent Upon Financial Strength Of Buyer

Buyer May Need To Raise Capital

Buyer May Require Significant Discount For Uncertainties In Current Macro Environment

Buyer Will Be Unable To Utilize NOLs So Purchase Price Will Not Reflect Them

Sale/Merger


Demanding Capital ScreensInvestor Screens

Genworth On Track For Executing Other Material Capital Reallocation Transactions

Additional Granular Analysis Of The Risk, Value & Return Considerations

Improved Visibility On The Public Policy Front

Assessment Of Actions By Competitors Along With The Current Views Of GSEs & Regulators


Housing Reform Progress

QRM Update

QRM Still Pending -- 10% Down Compromise Or Re-Proposed Altogether?

Growing Consensus For Broader Definition

FHA Market

Actuarial Report Shows Increased Capital Pressure & Bailout Scenarios

FHA Loan Limits Increased By Congress … No Increase For GSEs

Continue To Support FHA Contraction & Reform

Housing Finance (GSE) Reform

Limited Action Before 2012 Presidential Election

Private Mortgage Insurance In Every Credible Plan

Potential Opportunity For Deeper MI Coverage


Key Messages Risk Discipline Entering The Cycle Resulted In Differentiated Portfolio Mix With Go Forward Implications

Changes In Reserve Expectation Impacted 2010 & 2011 Results… Current Expectation Is New Delinquencies Should Drive Losses Going Forward

Risk To Capital Elevated But Claims Paying Ability Is Sound

New Business Adds Positive Economics And Benefits Claims Paying Ability

Multiple Factors Drive A Return To Profitability

Evaluated All Strategic Options & Following A Planned Path


Appendix


Glossary of Key Terms

New Insurance Written (NIW)

Original Principal Balance Of Mortgages Insured In A Given Period (e.g. One Year)

When We Say … It Represents …

Loan To Value (LTV) Loan Amount Divided By Property Value At Origination

Net Written Premiums (NWP)

Premiums Collected On Insured Loans In A Given Period

Insurance In-Force (IIF)

Original Principal Balance Of All Mortgage LoansCurrently Insured

Unearned Premium Reserve (UPR)

Premiums Received But Not Yet Amortized Into Earnings

Risk In-Force (RIF)IIF x Mortgage Insurance Coverage %; Coverage % Adjusted For Historical Loss Severity

Loss Ratio Incurred Losses Divided By Net Earned Premiums


LoanCoverage

DelinquentLoan Balance

Loss Reserve Calculation

SeverityFrequencyX X X

25%$190,000 95%33% $15,000

=Total LossReserve

25% 105%50% $25,000

Example: Missed Two Payments

Example: Missed Three Payments

$190,000

Reserve Based On Delinquent Loan Balance

Delinquencies Are Classified By Age

Reserves Increase At Each Stage Of Delinquency Age As The Probability Of Going To Claim Becomes Higher

Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) Is A Percentage Of Total Loss Reserves

Periodic Reviews By 3rd Party Independent Actuary & External Auditor

P&L Impact = Change In Loss Reserves


Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements This presentation contains certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements may be identified by words such as “expects,” “intends,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “will” or words of similar meaning and include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the outlook for the company’s future business and financial performance. Forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions, which are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially due to global political, economic, business, competitive, market, regulatory and other factors and risks, including the following:

• Risks relating to the company’s businesses, including downturns and volatility in global economies and equity and credit markets; downgrades or potential downgrades inthe company’s financial strength or credit ratings; interest rate fluctuations and levels; adverse capital and credit market conditions (including the impact on the potential extension, replacement or refinancing of the company’s credit facilities); the valuation of fixed maturity, equity and trading securities; defaults, downgrades or other events impacting the value of the company’s fixed maturity securities portfolio; defaults on the company’s commercial mortgage loans or the mortgage loans underlying the company’s investments in commercial mortgage-backed securities and volatility in performance; goodwill impairments; defaults by counterparties to reinsurance arrangements or derivative instruments; an adverse change in risk based capital and other regulatory requirements; insufficiency of reserves; legal constraints on dividend distributions by the company’s subsidiaries; competition; availability, affordability and adequacy of reinsurance; loss of key distribution partners; regulatory restrictions on the company’s operations and changes in applicable laws and regulations; legal or regulatory investigations or actions; the failure of or any compromise of the security of the company’s computer systems; the occurrence of natural or man-made disasters or a pandemic; the effect of the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; changes in the accounting standards issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board or other standard-setting bodies; impairments of or valuation allowances against the company’s deferred tax assets; changes in expected morbidity and mortality rate; accelerated amortization of deferred acquisition costs and present value of future profits; reputational risks as a result of rate increases on certain in force long term care insurance products; medical advances, such as genetic research and diagnostic imaging, and related legislation; unexpected changes in persistency rates; ability to continue to implement actions to mitigate the impact of statutory reserve requirements; the failure of demand for long term care insurance to increase; political and economic instability or changes in government policies; foreign exchange rate fluctuations; unexpected changes in unemployment rates; unexpected increases in mortgage insurance default rates or severity of defaults; the significant portion of high loan to value insured international mortgage loans which generally result in more and larger claims than lower loan-to-value ratios; competition with government owned high loan to value insured international mortgage loans which generally result in more and larger claims than lower loan-to-value ratios; competition with government owned and government sponsored enterprises offering mortgage insurance; changes in international regulations reducing demand for mortgage insurance; increases in mortgage insurance default rates; failure to meet, or have waived to the extent needed, the minimum statutory capital requirements and hazardous financial condition standards; uncertain results of continued investigations of insured U.S. mortgage loans; possible rescissions of coverage and the results of objections to the company’s rescissions; the extent to which loan modifications and other similar programs may provide benefits to the company; unexpected changes in unemployment and underemployment rates in the United States; further deterioration in economic conditions or a further decline in home prices in the United States; problems associated with foreclosure process defects in the United States that may defer claim payments; changes to the role or structure of Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); competition with government owned and government sponsored enterprises offering U.S. mortgage insurance; changes in regulations that affect the U.S. mortgage insurance business; the influence of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and a small number of large mortgage lenders and investors; decreases in the volume of high loan to value mortgage originations or increases in mortgage insurance cancellations in the United States; increases in the use of alternatives to private mortgage insurance in the United States and reductions by lenders in the level of coverage they select; the impact of the use of reinsurance with reinsurance companies affiliated with U.S. mortgage lending customers; legal actions under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974; and potential liabilities in connection with the company’s U.S. contract underwriting services;

• Other risks, including the risk that adverse market or other conditions might delay or impede the planned IPO of the company’s mortgage insurance business in Australia; the possibility that in certain circumstances the company will be obligated to make payments to General Electric Company (GE) under the tax matters agreement with GE even if the company’s corresponding tax savings are never realized and payments could be accelerated in the event of certain changes in control; and provisions of the company’s certificate of incorporation and bylaws and the tax matters agreement with GE may discourage takeover attempts and business combinations that stockholders might consider in their best interests; and

• Risks relating to the company’s common stock, including the suspension of dividends and stock price fluctuations.

The company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.


This presentation includes information related to loss mitigation activities for the U.S. mortgage insurance business. The company defines loss mitigation activities as rescissions, cancellations, borrower loan modifications, repayment plans, lender- and borrower-titled presales, claims administration and other loan workouts. Estimated savings related to rescissions are the reduction in carried loss reserves, net of premium refunds and reinstatement of prior rescissions. Estimated savings related to loan modifications and other cure related loss mitigation actions represent the reduction in carried loss reserves. For non-cure related actions, including presales, the estimated savings represent the difference between the full claim obligation and the actual amount paid. The company believes that this information helps to enhance the understanding of the operating performance of the U.S. mortgage insurance business as loss mitigation activities specifically impact current and future loss reserves and level of claim payments.

Definition Of Selected Operating Performance Measures


U.S. Mortgage Insurance Perspectivess2.q4cdn.com/240635966/files/doc_presentations/GNW USMI...

Documents

Transcript of U.S. Mortgage Insurance Perspectivess2.q4cdn.com/240635966/files/doc_presentations/GNW USMI...