Enact (ACT) 10-K2022 FY Annual report

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, including Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. These forward-looking statements may address, among other things, our expected financial and operational results, the related assumptions underlying our expected results and the quotations of management. These forward-looking statements are distinguished by use of words such as “will,” “would,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “believe,” “designed,” “plan,” or “intend,” the negative of these terms and similar references to future periods. These views involve risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict and, accordingly, our actual results may differ materially from the results discussed in our forward-looking statements. Our forward-looking statements contained herein speak only as of the date of this annual report. “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this Annual Report and contained in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, may cause our actual results to differ from those expressed in forward-looking statements. Although Enact believes the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, the Company can give no assurance that its expectations will be achieved and it undertakes no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

We are a leading private mortgage insurance company serving the United States housing finance market since 1981 with a mission to help people buy a house and keep it their home. We operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Our principal mortgage insurance customers are originators of residential mortgage loans who typically determine which mortgage insurer or insurers they will use for the placement of mortgage insurance written on loans they originate.

As a private mortgage insurer, we play a critical role in the United States housing finance system. We are engaged in the business of writing and assuming residential mortgage guaranty insurance. The insurance covers a portion of the unpaid principal balance of Low Down Payment Loans and protects lenders and investors against certain losses resulting from nonpayment of loans secured by mortgages, deeds of trust, or other instruments constituting a first lien on residential real estate. We facilitate the sale of mortgages to the secondary market, including to private investors as well as the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-sponsored enterprises and are collectively referred to as the “GSEs.” Credit protection and liquidity through secondary market sales allow mortgage lenders to increase their lending capacity, manage risk and expand financing access to prospective homeowners, many of whom are first time home buyers (“FTHBs”).

We have a large and diverse customer base maintaining enduring relationships across the mortgage origination market, including with national banks, non-bank mortgage lenders, local mortgage bankers, community banks and credit unions. In both 2022 and 2021, we provided new insurance coverage to approximately 1,800 customers. For the full years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020 we generated new insurance written (“NIW”) of $66.5 billion, $97.0 billion and $99.9 billion, respectively. Net income was $704 million, $547 million and $370 million in 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively. Adjusted operating income was $709 million, $551 million and $373 million for 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

We have a rigorous approach to writing new insurance risk based on decades of loan-level data and experience in the mortgage insurance industry. We believe our balance sheet is well capitalized to manage through macroeconomic uncertainty and maintain compliance with private mortgage insurer eligibility requirements (“PMIERs”) and state regulatory standards of compliance. We utilize our credit risk transfer (“CRT”) program to mitigate future loss volatility and drive efficient capital management. Our CRT program is a material component of our strategy, and we believe it helps to protect future business performance and stockholder capital under stress scenarios by transferring risk from our balance sheet to highly rated counterparties or to investors through collateralized transactions. As of December 31, 2022, we had a published PMIERs sufficiency ratio of 165%, representing $2,050 million of available assets above the published PMIERs requirement and approximately 89% of our insured portfolio was covered by our CRT program. Our PMIERs sufficiency ratio, which is based on the published requirements applicable to private mortgage insurers, was above the requirement imposed by the GSE Restrictions of 120% in 2022.

Enact Holdings, Inc. (“EHI,” together with its subsidiaries, the “Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our”) (formerly known as Genworth Mortgage Holdings, Inc.) was a wholly owned subsidiary of Genworth Financial, Inc. (“Genworth” or “Parent”) since EHI’s incorporation in Delaware in 2012 until our initial public offering on September 20, 2021.

On May 3, 2021, EHI amended its certificate of incorporation to change its name from Genworth Mortgage Holdings, Inc. This amendment also authorized EHI to issue 600,000,000 shares of common stock, each having a par value of $0.01 per share. Concurrently, we entered into a share exchange

On September 15, 2021, we priced our initial public offering (“IPO”) of common stock, which resulted in the issuance and sale of 13,310,400 shares of common stock at the IPO price of $19.00 per common share. All shares were offered by the selling stockholder, our parent company, Genworth Holdings. In addition to the shares sold in the IPO, 14,655,600 common shares were sold in a concurrent private sale (“Private Sale”) at a price per share of $17.86, which is equal to the IPO price less the underwriting discount share. Genworth Holdings also granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 1,996,560 common shares (“Over-Allotment Option”) at the IPO price less the underwriting discount. On September 16, 2021, the underwriters exercised their option to purchase all 1,996,560 common shares permitted under the terms of the underwriting agreement. The IPO, Private Sale, and Over-Allotment Option (collectively the “Offering”) closed on September 20, 2021, and Genworth Holdings retained all net proceeds from the Offering.

We operate a majority of our business through our primary insurance subsidiary, Enact Mortgage Insurance Corporation (“EMICO”). EMICO is an approved insurer by the GSEs. EMICO was renamed from Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corporation effective February 7, 2022. Our operations are all domestic with the exception of a run-off insurance block with reference properties in Mexico (“run-off business”), which is immaterial to our results.

Our objective is to support our mission to help people buy a house and keep it their home, while leveraging our competitive strengths to maximize value for our stockholders. This strategy is based on the following priorities:

The GSEs are the largest participants in the secondary mortgage market, buying residential mortgages from banks and other primary lenders as part of their government mandate to provide liquidity and stability in the United States housing finance system. According to the companies’ earnings reports, the GSEs held or guaranteed approximately $6.7 trillion as of September 30, 2022, or around 51%, of total United States 1-4 family residential mortgage debt according to most recent data from the Federal Reserve. The GSE charters generally require credit enhancement for Low Down Payment Loans to be eligible for purchase by the GSEs. Such credit enhancement can be satisfied if a loan is insured by a GSE-qualified insurer, the mortgage seller retains at least a 10% participation in the loan, or the seller agrees to repurchase or replace the loan in the event of a default. Private mortgage insurance satisfies the GSEs’ credit enhancement requirement and, historically, has been the preferred method lenders have utilized to meet this GSE charter requirement. As a result, the nature of the private mortgage insurance industry in the United States is driven in large part by the business practices and mortgage insurance requirements of the GSEs. In furtherance of their respective charter requirements, each GSE maintains private mortgage insurer eligibility criteria, known as PMIERs, to establish when a mortgage insurer is qualified to issue coverage that will be acceptable to the GSEs for their portfolio. For more information about the financial and other requirements of the GSEs, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—If we are unable to continue to meet the requirements mandated by PMIERs, the GSE Restrictions and any additional restrictions imposed on us by the GSEs, we may not be eligible to write new insurance on loans acquired by the GSEs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.”

Private mortgage insurance plays a critical role in the United States residential mortgage market by facilitating secondary market sales, particularly for Low Down Payment Loans. This credit protection and the resulting liquidity it provides through secondary market sales allows mortgage lenders to increase their lending capacity, manage risk and expand prospective homeowners’ access to financing, many of whom are FTHBs. Mortgage insurance also provides lenders and investors a means to diversify their exposures, mitigate mortgage credit risk and may offer credit against regulatory capital requirements to certain financial institutions that portfolio Low Down Payment Loans. Today, mortgage insurance products are primarily geared towards GSE secondary market sales. The increase in penetration of private mortgage insurance in the mortgage market can be attributed to both the introduction of new GSE products designed to serve Low Down Payment Loan borrowers and more competitive pricing by private mortgage insurers relative to the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”). In addition, there are potential opportunities for the demand for and use of mortgage insurance to the extent that the private label securitization market expands in the future.

The overall new business opportunity in the private mortgage insurance market is also reflective of the mix between purchase and refinancing originations. Historically, due to the higher prevalence of Low-

Our principal sources of competition are government (federal, state and local) agencies, such as the FHA and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) and other private mortgage insurers. We also compete with mortgage lenders and other investors, the GSEs, portfolio lenders who self-insure, reinsurers and other capital markets participants who may utilize financial instruments designed to mitigate risk.

We have also experienced competition in recent years from various participants in the mortgage finance industry including the GSEs, portfolio lenders, reinsurers and other participants in the capital markets. We compete with these participants primarily based on pricing, policy terms and perceived financial strength. The GSEs enter into risk sharing transactions with financial institutions designed to reduce the risk of their mortgage portfolios. Competition also comes from portfolio lenders that are willing to hold credit risk on their balance sheets without credit enhancement. In addition, investors can make use of risk-sharing structures designed to mitigate the impact of mortgage defaults in place of private mortgage insurance. Finally, although their presence is a fraction of what it was in the past, there are products designed to eliminate the need for private mortgage insurance, such as “simultaneous seconds,” which combine a first lien loan with a second lien loan in order to meet the 80% LTV threshold required for sale to the GSEs without certain credit protections.

In general, there are two types of private mortgage insurance: primary and pool.

Substantially all of our policies are primary mortgage insurance, which provides protection on individual loans at specified coverage percentages. Primary mortgage insurance is placed on individual loans at the time of origination and are typically delivered to us on a loan-by-loan basis. Primary mortgage insurance can also be delivered to us on an aggregated basis, whereby each mortgage in a given loan portfolio is insured in a single transaction after the point of origination.

Customers who purchase our primary mortgage insurance select a specific coverage level for each insured loan. To be eligible for purchase by a GSE, a Low Down Payment Loan must comply with the coverage percentages established by that particular GSE. For loans not sold to the GSEs, the customer determines its desired coverage percentage. Generally, our risk across all policies written is approximately 25% of the underlying primary insurance in-force (“IIF”), but may vary from policy to policy, typically between 6% and 35% coverage.

We file our premium rates, as required, with insurance departments of U.S. States and the District of Columbia. Premium rates cannot be changed after the issuance of coverage. Premium payments for primary mortgage insurance coverage are typically made by the borrower and are referred to as borrower-paid mortgage insurance. Loans for which premiums are paid by the lender are referred to as lender-paid mortgage insurance. In either case, the payment of premium to us is generally the responsibility of the insured.

Premiums are generally calculated as a percentage of the original principal balance and may be paid as follows:

In general, we may not terminate mortgage insurance coverage except in the event of non-payment of premiums or certain material violations of our mortgage insurance policies. The insured may cancel mortgage insurance coverage at any time at their option or upon mortgage repayment, which is accelerated in the event of a refinancing. However, in the case of loans sold to the GSEs, lender cancellation of a policy not eligible for cancellation under GSE guidelines may be in violation of the GSEs’ respective charters. GSE guidelines generally provide that a borrower meeting certain conditions may require the mortgage servicer to cancel mortgage insurance coverage upon the borrower’s request when the principal balance of the loan is 80% or less of the property’s current value. In addition to the GSE guidelines, HOPA provides an obligation for lenders to automatically terminate a borrower’s obligation to pay for mortgage insurance coverage once the LTV ratio reaches 78% of the original value, and also provides that a borrower may request cancellation of their obligation to pay for mortgage insurance when the LTV ratio, based on the current value of the property, reaches 80%. In addition, some states impose their own mortgage insurance notice and cancellation requirements on mortgage loan servicers.

Pool mortgage insurance transactions provide coverage on a finite set of individual loans identified by the pool policy. Pool policies contain coverage percentages and provisions limiting the insurer’s obligation to pay claims until a threshold amount is reached (known as a “deductible”) or capping the insurer’s

We also perform fee-based contract underwriting services for our customers. Contract underwriting provides our customers outsourced scalable capacity to underwrite mortgage loans. Our underwriters can underwrite the loan on behalf of our customers for both investor compliance and mortgage insurance, thus reducing duplicative activities and increasing our ability to write mortgage insurance for these loans. Under the terms of our contract underwriting agreements, we indemnify our customer against losses incurred in the event we make material errors in determining whether loans underwritten by our contract underwriters meet specified underwriting or purchase criteria, subject to contractual limitations on liability.

We believe that our portfolio is of significant scale and aligns with our appetite for risk and return. The majority of our in-force exposures and all of our NIW is considered primary insurance, meaning we insure the loss on each loan up to the coverage amount without any stop loss or deductible for that loss. Our remaining pool exposures are significantly seasoned and represent less than 0.2% of total risk in-force (“RIF”).

Our primary insurance portfolio is diversified through time. The distribution of our exposure by book year is influenced by market size opportunities, our commercial strategies and the persistency of our in-force policies. In 2021 and 2020, our portfolio was impacted by low persistency, a large origination market and commercial success in the market, leading to a concentration in recent years as the 2022, 2021 and 2020 book years represent 25%, 33% and 22%, respectively, of our primary IIF. Our primary exposures from legacy books originated prior to 2009 continue to resolve in an orderly fashion and represented 3% of both our primary IIF and primary RIF as of December 31, 2022. These books continue to represent a larger portion of our delinquencies and reserves driven by the continued aging of those delinquencies.

We believe that our success in establishing strong, sustained relationships and our ability to capture new customers is attributable to our comprehensive value proposition. We offer customers a competitive price along with differentiated offerings and services. Additionally, by maintaining an ongoing dialogue with our customers, we are able to develop an understanding of their needs, offer customized solutions for their challenges, advise them on portfolio composition and trends, share market perspectives and industry best practices and provide product development support and training as necessary.

Our sales and marketing efforts are designed to help us establish and maintain in-depth, quality customer relationships. We distribute our mortgage insurance products through a dedicated sales force located throughout the United States, our home-based in-house sales representatives and a digital marketing program designed to expand our reach beyond our sales force. Our sales force strives to build strong relationships across all areas of our customers’ operations to include loan origination, loan processing, underwriting, product development, secondary marketing, risk management, compliance, information technology and C-suite executives. With a vast database of established individual contacts, the breadth and depth of relationships not only serves as a differentiator for our mortgage insurance platform but also enables us to form strategic partnerships with other mortgage service providers seeking to expand their distribution reach.

We support our sales force and improve their effectiveness in acquiring new customers by raising our brand awareness through advertising and marketing campaigns, website enhancements, digital communication strategies and sponsorship of industry and educational events. Our digital marketing capabilities position us to serve our decentralized market with targeted, personalized messages that help drive a preference for our offering. Additionally, our marketing efforts include differentiators targeted to the needs of customers, in order to increase our brand affinity. Finally, our consulting services provide customers with strategy and process consulting to help improve quality, reduce costs and grow their business.

In 2019, we launched a separate mortgage insurance policy underwritten by our wholly owned subsidiary, Enact Mortgage Insurance Corporation of North Carolina (“EMIC-NC”), to insure primary individually underwritten residential mortgage loans as well as portfolios of residential mortgage loans at or after origination that are not intended for sale to the GSEs. Given that EMIC-NC is not a GSE approved insurer, it is not subject to the requirements mandated by PMIERs. Accordingly, we are able to utilize EMIC-NC in a manner that provides us with greater flexibility with our master policies and in our ability to efficiently use the capital of our subsidiaries, each with customers who retain loans in their own portfolio. We also believe utilizing EMIC-NC in this manner provides us strategic optionality if the private label MBS market increases.

Technology that supports connectivity with our customers is critical. As an established private mortgage insurance provider, we have long-standing relationships with our customers’ technology organizations, as well as with the key pricing and loan origination/servicing platform providers. In addition, we have an experienced technology integration team that allows us to quickly customize loan delivery solutions for our customers. By providing customers an easy way to quote and order our mortgage

Strong risk management is a critical part of our business. The Risk Committee of our Board of Directors is responsible for oversight and review of our enterprise risk management policies and related risk profile. We believe our risk management framework is appropriately designed to manage volatility in our business performance and protect our balance sheet. We believe this framework encompasses all major risks to which we are exposed, including credit risk, market risk, insurance risk, housing risk, operational risk, model risk, IT risk and any other risk that poses a material threat to the viability of the Company.

Our risk management philosophy is designed to ensure all relevant risks are routinely identified, assessed, managed, monitored and addressed. We rely upon a strong organizational risk culture and governance process, ensuring that the risks we take are transparent and quantifiable, and that we can monitor the changing nature of those risks over time. We proactively work towards mitigating exposures outside of the risk appetite, limits and tolerances that we set and review annually. Our risk profile, top risks and any emerging risks are regularly reviewed in our senior management risk committee, chaired by our Chief Risk Officer who has direct reporting obligations to the Risk Committee of our Board.

We believe our risk management and oversight structure is appropriate for our business, but we cannot be assured that it will be adequate in mitigating all our risks. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—Our risk management programs may not be effective in identifying or adequate in controlling or mitigating the risks we face.”

We use our proprietary risk modeling platform to evaluate returns and volatility through both an external regulatory lens and an economic capital framework that is sensitive to the economic cycle and current housing market conditions. This risk model utilizes numerous predictive variables and leverages our unique data set, which contains experience of over two decades of mortgage performance across all market conditions, to develop quantitative assessments of default probability, severity of loss, prepayment and expected volatility on each insured loan. Our model is used to assess the performance of new business and our in-force portfolio under expected and stress scenarios. The results of these analyses inform our risk appetite, credit policy, pricing and targeted risk selection strategies. In addition, the results of these stress tests and our desire to reduce loss volatility inform our CRT strategy.

Customers applying for a new master policy undergo a process that reviews their business and financial profile, licensing, management experience and track record of originating quality mortgages. Customers applying for delegated underwriting authority receive training and are reviewed on initial and ongoing submissions for compliance to our guidelines.

Loans delivered to us for insurance must meet our underwriting and eligibility guidelines. Our underwriting principles require borrowers to have a verified capacity and willingness to support the obligation and a well-supported valuation of the collateral. Loans are underwritten on either a delegated or non-delegated basis, but all loans pass through our eligibility rules engine to screen out those outside of our guidelines. We regularly monitor national and local market conditions, the performance of our products and the performance of our customers against our expectations for mix and profitability. We adjust our underwriting, pricing and risk selection strategies on a regular basis to ensure that our products remain competitive and consistent with our risk and profitability objectives.

We have an independent quality assurance function that conducts pre- and post-closing underwriting reviews. We review statistically significant samples of loan files from individual customers and across our delegated and non-delegated underwriting channels to identify adverse trends and provide our underwriters and customers with timely feedback and training that fosters high quality loan production. Within our delegated channel, the frequency of our lender specific reviews is directly related to an account’s activity, that is larger accounts will receive more frequent reviews. The results of these reviews also allow for adjustments to underwriting processes and credit policy. Finally, our quality assurance team conducts independent reviews on key operational processes and critically important vendor activities.

We regularly monitor the characteristics and performance of our overall mortgage insurance portfolio. We monitor concentrations across a range of metrics including lender, geography and policy year. Through stress testing, we evaluate the performance of the portfolio and identify risks to our strategic plan caused by its makeup in adverse economic scenarios. We also monitor performance against expected loss development from time of origination. Variations identified by product, performance, geography or otherwise inform adjustments to our guidelines and pricing strategies.

We establish and maintain underwriting guidelines based on our risk appetite. Our guidelines require borrowers to have a verified capacity and willingness to support their obligation and a well-supported valuation of the collateral. Our underwriting guidelines incorporate credit eligibility requirements that, among other things, limit our coverage to mortgages that meet our thresholds with respect to borrower FICO scores, maximum LTVs, documentation requirements and maximum Debt-to-Income (“DTI”) Ratio. All loans must pass through our eligibility rules engine to screen out those outside of our guidelines.

At present, our underwriting guidelines are largely consistent with those of the GSEs. Many of our customers use the GSEs’ automated loan underwriting systems, Desktop Underwriter and Loan Product Advisor, for making credit determinations. We generally accept the underwriting decisions and documentation requirements made by the GSEs’ underwriting systems, subject to our review as well as certain limitations and requirements.

Over the past few years, more customers have requested expedited underwriting services. To meet customer demand, we invested in technologies, automation, data science and analytics to develop our proprietary mortgage insurance underwriting system. Our mortgage insurance underwriting system enables the capability to meet customer demand in a timely manner without sacrificing the accuracy of our underwriting decisions. Specifically, it has contributed to a substantial increase in our underwriters’ productivity, more than doubling the number of loans our underwriters have processed on a daily basis since 2015, while remaining within our quality control tolerances. We believe our mortgage insurance underwriting system also differentiates us from the competition by allowing us to efficiently provide

Our policies are issued through one of two underwriting programs:

For non-delegated underwriting, customers submit loan files to us, and we individually underwrite each application to determine whether we will insure the loan. We use our mortgage insurance underwriting system to perform our non-delegated underwriting evaluations. Our underwriting staff is dispersed throughout the United States and we believe this allows us to make prompt, geographically based underwriting determinations across different time zones in a timely manner to best serve our diverse customer base. In addition to our employees, we use domestically based, contract underwriters, as needed, to assist with underwriting capacity and drive efficiency.

We delegate to eligible lender customers the ability to underwrite mortgage insurance based on our delegated underwriting guidelines. To perform delegated underwriting, customers must be approved by our risk management team. Some customers prefer to assume underwriting responsibility because it is more efficient within their loan origination process, and they are comfortable attesting that the data submitted is true and correct when making our insurance decision. We regularly perform quality assurance reviews on a statistically significant sample of delegated loans to assess compliance with our guidelines.

We also offer a post-closing underwriting review when requested by customers for both non-delegated and delegated loans. Upon satisfactory completion of this review, we agree to waive our right to rescind coverage under certain circumstances. For the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, approximately 71% and 65%, respectively, of our NIW by loan count went through our delegated underwriting services.

Pricing is highly competitive in the mortgage insurance industry, with industry participants competing for market share, customer relationships and overall value. Recent pricing trends have introduced an increasing number of loan, borrower, lender and property attributes, resulting in expanded granularity in pricing regimes and a shift from traditional published rate cards to dynamic pricing engines that better align price and risk. Our risk-based pricing engine was developed to evaluate returns and volatility under both the PMIERs capital framework and our internal economic capital framework, which is sensitive to economic cycles and current housing market conditions. The model assesses the performance of new business under expected and stress scenarios on an individualized loan basis, which is used to determine pricing and inform our risk selection strategy that optimizes economic value by balancing return and volatility.

Our policy has been to set and charge premium rates commensurate with the underlying risk of each loan we insure. Our proprietary pricing platform, however, provides us with a more flexible, granular and analytical approach to selecting and pricing risk. Using our platform, we can quickly change price to modify our risk selection levels in response to changing economic conditions, new analytical insights or industry pricing trends.

Our risk management framework and analytics inform our CRT strategy, which is designed to reduce the loss volatility of our in-force portfolio during stress scenarios by transferring risk from our balance sheet to highly rated counterparties or to investors through collateralized transactions. Our CRT program also provides capital relief under PMIERs and state insurance capital requirements. In normal market

Our CRT program distributes risk to both highly rated counterparties through our traditional reinsurance program, as well as to insurance-linked note (“ILN”) investors via fully collateralized special purpose reinsurance vehicles. Our reinsurance transactions generally cover a subset of loans in a given book year and have been structured as excess of loss (“XOL”) coverage where typically both the attachment and detachment points of the ceded risk tier are within the PMIERs capital requirements at inception, providing both loss volatility protection and PMIERs capital credit. Each reinsurance treaty has a term of ten years or more and provides a unilateral right to commute prior to the full term, subject to certain performance triggers. We select the type and structure of our CRT transactions based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, capacity, cost, flexibility, sustainability and diversification. Since 2015, we have executed $4.6 billion of CRT transactions across both traditional reinsurance arrangements and ILN transactions through December 31, 2022, with approximately 89% of our RIF insurance covered under our current CRT program. We expect to begin transferring losses at an approximate 30 to 35% lifetime book year loss ratio and extend up to an approximate 60 to 70% lifetime book year loss ratio at current pricing assumptions and depending on our co-participation level within the reinsurance tier.

Through our traditional reinsurance transactions, we have executed $2.8 billion of XOL reinsurance coverage with highly rated reinsurers covering the 2009 to 2022 book years.

The Company’s traditional reinsurance coverage is provided by a panel of reinsurance partners each currently rated “A-” or better by Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) or A.M. Best Company, Inc. These reinsurers are contractually required to collateralize a portion (typically 20 to 30%) of the reinsurance exposures consistent with PMIERs.

Through our ILN transactions, we have executed $1.8 billion of XOL reinsurance coverage supported by capital markets investors via fully collateralized special purpose reinsurance vehicles covering a portion of the 2014 to 2021 book years. The notes are non-recourse to us and our affiliates.

Our CRT program provided an estimated aggregate of $1.6 billion of PMIERs capital credit and $1.8 billion of loss coverage as of December 31, 2022.

Our loss mitigation and claims area is led by seasoned personnel who are supported by default tracking and claims processing capabilities within our integrated platform. Our loss mitigation staff is also actively engaged with the GSEs and servicers regarding appropriate servicing and loss mitigation practices. We have granted loss mitigation delegation to the GSEs and servicers, whereby they perform certain loss mitigation efforts on our behalf. Moreover, the CFPB servicing rule obligates servicers to engage in early intervention and loss mitigation efforts with a borrower prior to foreclosure. These efforts have traditionally involved loan modifications intended to enable qualified borrowers to make restructured loan payments or efforts to sell the property, thereby potentially reducing claim amounts. With the COVID-19 pandemic, we have experienced unprecedented use of forbearance plans nationwide to assist

Our goal is to keep borrowers in their homes. If a loan becomes delinquent, we work closely with customers, investors and servicers to attempt to cure the delinquency and allow the homeowner to retain ownership of their property.

Claims result from delinquencies that are not cured, or from losses on short sales, other third-party sales or deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure that we approve. Various factors affect the frequency and severity of claims, including LTV at the time of foreclosure, size and coverage percentage of a loan, property values, employment levels and interest rates. Any delays in foreclosure, including foreclosure moratoriums imposed by state and local governments and the GSEs, such as those due to COVID-19, could cause our losses to increase as expenses accrue for longer periods or if the value of foreclosed homes further decline during such foreclosure delays. For loans insured on or after October 1, 2014, our mortgage insurance policies limit the number of months of unpaid interest and associated expenses that are included in the mortgage insurance claim amount to a maximum of 36 months.

Under the terms of our primary insurance master policy, customers are required to file claims within 60 days of the earliest of (i) the date they have acquired title to the underlying property (typically through foreclosure), (ii) the date of an approved short sale or other third-party sale of the underlying property or (iii) the date a request is made by us to file a claim.

Upon review and determination that a filed claim is valid, we generally have the following three settlement options:

In 2022 and 2021, we settled over half of our claims through the third-party sale or acquisition options due largely to embedded home price appreciation.

Claim activity is not evenly spread across the coverage period of loans we insure. The number of delinquencies may not correlate directly with the number of claims received because the rate at which delinquencies are cured is influenced by borrowers’ financial resources and circumstances, as well as regional economic differences. For those loans that fail to cure, whether delinquency leads to a claim principally depends upon the borrower’s equity at the time of delinquency and the borrower’s or the insured’s ability to sell the home for an amount sufficient to satisfy all amounts due under the mortgage loan.

When claim notices are received, we review loan and servicing files to determine the appropriateness of a claim amount. Failure to deliver required documentation or our review of such documentation may result in rescission, cancellation or claims denial. Our insurance policies provide that we can reduce or deny claims if the servicer does not materially comply with its obligations under our policies, including the requirement to pursue reasonable loss mitigation actions. We also periodically receive claim notices that request coverage for costs and expenses associated with items not covered under our policies, such as losses resulting from property damage to a covered home. We actively review claim notices to ensure we

When reviewing loan and servicing files in connection with the delinquency or claims process, we may also decide to rescind coverage of the underlying mortgages or deny payment of claims. Our ability to rescind coverage is limited by the terms of our master policies. We may rescind coverage in situations where, among other things, (i) fraudulent misrepresentations were made or materially inaccurate information was provided regarding a borrower’s income, debts, intention to occupy a property or property value or (ii) a loan was originated in material violation of our underwriting guidelines.

We will consider an insured’s appeal of our decision and, if we agree with the appeal, we take the necessary steps to reinstate our insurance coverage and reactivate the loan certificate or otherwise address the issues raised in the appeal. If the parties are unable to agree on the outcome of the appeal, the insured may choose to pursue arbitration or litigation under the terms of the applicable master policy and challenge the results. Subject to applicable limitations in our policies and State law, legal challenges to our actions may be brought several years after we dispose of a claim.

From time to time, we enter into agreements with policyholders to accelerate claims and negotiate an agreed-upon payment amount for claims on an identified group of delinquent loans. In exchange for our accelerated claim payment, mortgage insurance is canceled, and we are discharged from any further liability on the identified loans.

We develop and invest in technology in order to drive operational excellence, ensure a superior customer experience and support our overall business objectives. Our business heavily relies upon information technology and a number of critical aspects are highly automated. We accept insurance applications, issue approvals, process claims and reconcile premium remittance through electronic submission. In order to facilitate these processes, we have established direct connections to many industry leading origination and servicing systems so that our customers and servicers can select our mortgage insurance products and communicate with us directly from within their own technology platform. We also provide our customers secure access to our web-based portals to facilitate transactions and provide customers with access to their account information.

We have made a number of strategic investments in our technology infrastructure, including our:

We are regularly upgrading and enhancing our systems and technology, with an eye towards expanding our capabilities, improving productivity and enhancing our customer experience, including:

We have also implemented an overarching technology strategy that utilizes Cloud, Software as a Service, commercial software and in some cases proprietary technology to provide scalability, flexibility and an enhanced security posture. Technology costs are managed by the continued automation of key business processes, reducing our application portfolio and using contract employees to scale resource capacity as needed. In addition, we have a dedicated “AI, Innovation & Automation” team to ensure that we focus on using the latest technologies to further automate our business and differentiate our products and services.

We employ a multi-layered approach to data security and data privacy. This approach begins with our information security program, which is based on National Institute of Standards and Technology, 800-53. Our program includes policies and standards that delineate requirements for the implementation and on-going maintenance of our information systems as well as security responsibilities for all personnel. We review these policies and standards periodically and update as needed. We take steps to ensure that all information security policies are maintained and enforced and that all personnel are educated on their responsibilities. We maintain a “defense-in-depth” model, which employs multiple layers of protection for the entire company. Among other things, we perform external and internal risk assessments, penetration testing, vulnerability scanning, secure code development and monthly security awareness training (including phishing awareness tests) for all personnel. The chief information officer and chief information security officer, together with our compliance organization, among others, ensure the requirements of our information security program satisfy applicable legal and regulatory requirements. Our chief information security officer also provides regular updates and reports to our senior leaders, including an annual cybersecurity report to the board that covers, among other topics, the information security organization, material risks, technical threats, information technology security infrastructure, patching and vulnerability management, cyber incidents, an annual cyber tabletop exercise and incident preparedness, supplier management, security awareness training, cybersecurity personnel/staffing and a cyber threat assessment. The board also reviews the chief compliance officer’s quarterly report, which includes information regarding data security incidents that meet the risk criteria for inclusion in the report. Through this reporting process, our board oversees our information security program and risks related thereto. As discussed above, strong risk management is a critical part of our business.

Our Risk Committee of the Board of Directors, in coordination with our management risk committee, has primary responsibility for overseeing cybersecurity, information technology and information security systems, processes, policies and risk management and the effectiveness of security controls.

Ratings with respect to the financial strength of operating subsidiaries are an important factor in establishing the competitive position of insurance companies. Ratings are important to maintaining public confidence in us and our ability to market our products. Rating organizations review the financial performance and condition of most insurers and provide opinions regarding financial strength, operating performance and ability to meet obligations to policyholders.

As of February 28, 2023, EMICO, our principal U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary, was rated “BBB+” by S&P, “Baa1” by Moody’s and “BBB+” by Fitch Ratings, Inc. (“Fitch”) in terms of financial strength.

The investment portfolios of our insurance subsidiaries are directed by the Enact Investment Committee, a management-level committee, with Genworth serving as the investment manager. Under the terms of our investment management agreement, the Company is charged an investment management fee by our Parent. The total investment expenses paid to our Parent were $5.5 million and

The investment portfolio of EHI is directed by a separate newly formed management-level EHI Investment Committee with a third-party investment manager. In addition, for certain asset classes, we utilize external asset management. In the future, we may choose to more broadly engage external asset managers. Our senior management team, along with our board of directors, reviews investment performance and strategy on a periodic basis. As of December 31, 2022, the fair value of our investment portfolio was $4.9 billion of fixed maturity assets, of which 98% was rated as investment grade. We also had an additional $514 million of cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2022. The primary objectives of managing the investment portfolio are to preserve capital, generate investment income and maintain sufficient liquidity to cover our operating expenses and pay future insurance claims. Investment strategies are implemented emphasizing fixed income, low volatility, highly liquid assets to meet expected and unexpected financial obligations while enhancing risk adjusted, after-tax yields. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Investment Portfolio.”

Our board-approved investment policy utilizes defined investment guidelines such as, but not limited to, asset sector, single issuer concentration and credit ratings to ensure compliance with risk management limits, regulatory requirements and applicable laws. Further, the policy seeks to restrict assets correlated with the residential mortgage market. Asset class mix and risks are regularly evaluated in the context of current and future capital market conditions, liability profiles and return objectives. The investment portfolio is regularly stress tested to evaluate its ability to meet unexpected liquidity needs due to elevated liabilities. Our investment policies and strategies are subject to change depending on regulatory, economic and market conditions, as well as our prevailing operating objectives.

For more information regarding our investment portfolio, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Results of Operations and Key Metrics—Investment Portfolio.”

We take a holistic approach to human capital management, including attracting and retaining talent with comprehensive benefits and compensation packages, providing professional development and learning opportunities, facilitating access to dedicated resources that foster an equitable and inclusive environment and encouraging a sincere commitment to community service and involvement. As of December 31, 2022, we had 496 full-time employees, all of whom work in the United States. Our employee population is made up of 58% women and 25% people of color. Of our employees, 46% work in our Raleigh, North Carolina office and the remaining 54% are in the field, predominantly working in sales and underwriting. We supplement our workforce, as needed, with independent contractors. Our employees and contractors are all equipped to work on a remote basis. None of our employees are represented by a union or subject to a collective servicing agreement and management believes that our relationship with our employees is good.

Some of our key areas of focus include:

As the severity of COVID-19 started to unfold at the beginning of 2020, our response included the implementation of policies to protect our employees. In early March 2020, we closed our offices and implemented a complete work from home policy through March 2022, as well as providing additional financial, health and wellness resources. We instituted a return to office plan in March 2022 which operates as a hybrid working model for a majority of our Raleigh-based employees.

Our insurance operations are generally subject to extensive oversight and a wide variety of laws and regulations. State insurance laws and regulations govern most aspects of our insurance business and are enforced by the insurance departments of each jurisdiction in which our insurers are licensed, with the North Carolina Department of Insurance (“NCDOI”) being the lead regulator for our North Carolina domiciled insurers. Our insurance products and business also are affected by federal, state and local laws, including tax laws.

The primary purpose of the state insurance laws and regulations regulating our insurance business is to protect our insureds, not our stockholders. These laws and regulations are regularly re-examined by state regulators and any changes to these laws or new laws may be more restrictive or otherwise adversely affect our operations.

Insurance and other regulatory authorities (including state law enforcement agencies and attorneys general) may make inquiries regarding compliance with insurance, securities and other laws and regulations, and we cooperate with such inquiries and take corrective action when warranted.

Our insurance subsidiaries are licensed and regulated in all jurisdictions in which they conduct insurance business. The extent of this regulation varies, but state insurance laws and regulations generally grant both broad and specific regulatory powers to agencies or officials to examine the affairs of our insurance subsidiaries and to enforce statutes and administrative rules or exercise discretion affecting almost every aspect of their businesses. For example, state insurance laws and regulations typically govern the financial condition of insurers, including standards for solvency, types and concentrations of permissible investments, establishment and maintenance of reserves, credit for reinsurance, requirements for capital adequacy, and the business conduct of insurers, including marketing, sales practices and claims handling. State insurance laws and regulations also usually require the licensing of insurers and agents, and the approval of policy forms and rates. In addition, states may require actuarial justification of rates on the basis of the insurer’s loss experience, expenses and future projections.

Mortgage guaranty insurance premium rates and policy forms are subject to regulation in every jurisdiction in which our insurance subsidiaries are licensed to transact business in order to protect policyholders against the adverse effects of excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory rates. In most jurisdictions, premium rates and policy forms must be filed prior to their use. In some states, such rates and forms must also be approved prior to use. Changes in premium rates are often subject to justification, generally on the basis of loss experience, expenses and future trend analysis. In addition, jurisdictions may consider general default experience in the mortgage insurance industry in assessing the premium rates charged by mortgage guaranty insurers. The state insurance laws and regulations of general applicability, along with certain additional state insurance laws and regulations that are applicable specifically to mortgage guaranty insurers, are described below.

Certain of our insurance subsidiaries are subject to the Insurance Holding Company Act in North Carolina and are required to furnish various types of information concerning the operations of, and the interrelationships and transactions among, companies within our holding company system that may affect the operations, management or financial condition of the insurers within such holding company system. Under state insurance laws and regulations, our insurance subsidiaries must file reports, including detailed annual and quarterly financial statements, with the insurance regulator in North Carolina and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”), and our operations and accounts are subject to periodic or target examination by any insurance regulator of a jurisdiction in which we conduct business. Mortgage guaranty insurers generally are limited by state insurance laws and regulations to directly writing only mortgage guaranty insurance business to the exclusion of other types of insurance.

State insurance laws and regulations also regulate transactions between insurers and their affiliates, sometimes mandating prior notice to the regulator and/or regulatory approval. Generally, state insurance laws and regulations require that all transactions between an insurer and an affiliate be fair and reasonable, and that the insurer’s statutory surplus following such transaction be reasonable in relation to its outstanding liabilities and adequate to its financial needs. Certain transactions may not be entered into unless the applicable regulator is given 30 days’ prior notification and does not disapprove the transaction during such 30-day period.

State insurance laws and regulations also require that an insurance holding company system’s ultimate controlling person submit annually to its lead state insurance regulator an “enterprise risk report” that identifies activities, circumstances or events involving one or more affiliates of an insurer that, if not remedied properly, are likely to have a material adverse effect upon the financial condition or liquidity of the insurer or its insurance holding company system as a whole. Finally, most jurisdictions have adopted insurance laws or regulations setting forth detailed requirements for cost sharing and management agreements between an insurer and its affiliates.

State insurance laws and regulations require that a person obtain the approval of the insurance commissioner of an insurer’s domiciliary jurisdiction prior to acquiring control of such insurer. Control of an insurer is generally presumed to exist if any person, directly or indirectly, owns, controls, holds with the power to vote, or holds proxies representing, 10% or more of the voting securities of the insurer or any parent entity; although such presumption may be rebutted. In considering an application to acquire control of an insurer, the insurance commissioner generally considers factors such as the experience, competence and financial strength of the applicant, the integrity of the applicant’s board of directors and executive officers, the acquirer’s plans for the management and operation of the insurer, and any anti-competitive results that may arise from the acquisition. Most jurisdictions also now require a person seeking to acquire control of an insurer licensed but not domiciled in that jurisdiction to make a filing prior to completing an acquisition if the acquirer and its affiliates and the target insurer and its affiliates have specified market shares in the same lines of insurance in that jurisdiction. These provisions may not require acquisition approval but can lead to imposition of conditions on an acquisition that could delay or prevent its consummation. In certain situations, state insurance laws and regulations also require that a controlling person of an insurer submit prior notice to the insurer’s domiciliary insurance regulator of a divestiture of control. Similarly, with respect to our contract underwriting entity, Enact Financial Services, Inc., prior approval from state banking commissioners is required in some jurisdictions prior to acquiring control of our contract underwriting entity, which is licensed or has an approved license exemption in most states.

Our insurance subsidiaries’ payment of dividends or other distributions to our holding company is regulated by the state insurance laws and regulations of their respective domiciliary states. Our insurance subsidiaries must deliver notice to the Commissioner of any dividend or distribution within 5 business days after declaration of the dividend or distribution, and at least 30 days before payment thereof. Any distribution, regardless of amount, requires that same 30-day notice to the Commissioner, but also requires the Commissioner’s affirmative approval before being paid.

Under the insurance laws of the State of North Carolina, an “extraordinary” dividend or distribution is defined as a dividend or distribution that, together with other dividends and distributions made within the preceding 12 months, exceeds the greater of: (i) 10% of the insurer’s statutory surplus as of the immediately prior year end; or (ii) the statutory net income (loss) during the prior calendar year.

In addition, insurance regulators may prohibit the payment of ordinary dividends and distributions or other payments by our insurers (such as a payment under a tax sharing agreement, for employment or other services) if they determine that such payment could be adverse to our policyholders or would not be fair and reasonable to the insurer.

The NAIC is an organization, the mandate of which is to benefit state insurance regulatory authorities and consumers by promulgating model insurance laws and regulations for adoption by the states. The NAIC also provides standardized insurance industry accounting and reporting guidance through the NAIC Accounting Manual. However, model insurance laws and regulations are only effective when adopted by the states, and Statutory Accounting Principles (“SAP”) continue to be established by individual state laws, regulations and permitted practices. Changes to the NAIC Accounting Manual or modifications by the various state insurance departments may affect the statutory capital and surplus of our insurance subsidiaries.

The NAIC adopted the Risk Management and Own Risk and Solvency Assessment Model Act (the “ORSA Model Act”). The ORSA Model Act requires an insurance holding company to, regularly, no less than annually, assess the adequacy of our insurance subsidiaries’ risk management framework, and current and estimated projected future solvency position; internally document the process and results of the assessment; and provide a confidential high-level report annually to the lead state commissioner.

State insurance laws and regulations govern the marketplace for insurers, affecting the form and content of disclosure to insureds, advertising, sales and underwriting practices and complaint and claims handling, and these provisions are generally enforced through periodic or target market conduct examinations. State insurance departments may conduct periodic or target detailed examinations of the books, records, accounts and business practices of insurers licensed in their states. These examinations are sometimes conducted in cooperation with insurance departments of multiple other states or jurisdictions representing each of the NAIC zones, under guidelines promulgated by the NAIC.

State insurance regulators developed SAP as a basis of accounting used to monitor and regulate the solvency of insurers. Since insurance regulators are primarily concerned with ensuring an insurer’s ability to pay its current and future obligations to policyholders, statutory accounting conservatively values the assets and liabilities of insurers, generally in accordance with standards specified by such insurer’s domiciliary jurisdiction. Uniform statutory accounting practices are established by the NAIC and are generally adopted by regulators in the various state jurisdictions. Due to differences in methodology between SAP and United States generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”), the values for assets, liabilities and equity reflected in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP are often materially different from those reflected in financial statements prepared under SAP.

State insurance laws and regulations govern the marketplace activities of insurers, affecting the form and content of disclosure to consumers, advertising, product replacement, sales and underwriting practices and complaint and claims handling, and these provisions are generally enforced through periodic market conduct examinations. Our insurance subsidiaries are not currently undergoing market conduct reviews in any states.

State insurance laws and regulations require diversification of our insurance subsidiaries’ investment portfolio and limit the proportion of, or in some cases totally prohibit, investments our insurance subsidiaries may hold in different asset categories. Assets invested contrary to such regulatory limitations must be treated as non-admitted assets for assessing an insurer’s solvency unless a waiver is given by the insurer’s domestic insurance regulator, and, in some instances, regulations require divestiture of such non-complying investments. We believe our insurance subsidiaries’ investments are in compliance with these state insurance laws and regulations or are subject to any applicable waivers.

Insurance regulators have the discretionary authority, in connection with maintaining the licensing of our insurance subsidiaries, to limit or restrict insurers from issuing new policies, or to take other actions, if, in the regulators’ judgment, the insurer is not maintaining a sufficient amount of surplus or reserves, or is in a hazardous financial condition. We seek to maintain new business and capital management strategies to support meeting related regulatory requirements.

The NAIC is in the process of considering changes to the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Model Act (the “MGI Model”) and revisions to Statement of Statutory Accounting Principles No. 58—Mortgage Guaranty Insurance. In 2020 the NAIC developed a mortgage guaranty supplemental filing. In September 2022, the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Working Group (the “MGIWG”) released its most recent exposure drafts of the revised MGI Model. The process for developing this framework is ongoing, and the outcome of this process remains uncertain. At this time, we cannot predict (i) the outcome of this process; (ii) which states, if any, may adopt the MGI Model; (iii) the effect changes, if any, will have on the mortgage guaranty insurance market generally, or on our business specifically; (iv) the additional costs associated with compliance with any such changes; or (v) any changes to our operations that may be necessary to comply, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We also cannot predict whether other regulatory initiatives will be adopted and what impact, if any, such initiatives, if adopted as laws, may have on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

During 2021, certain insurance groups agreed to voluntarily submit data to lead states using the newly adopted template as part of a trial implementation phase. Based on the trial results and feedback from these insurance groups, the NAIC implemented changes to the GCC Template and Instructions.

In May 2022, the Group Capital Calculation Working Group of the NAIC adopted the 2022 GCC Instructions and Template, which will be used by a number of states, including Delaware and Virginia, for year end 2022 filings. The GCC also adopted guidance for insurance regulators to use in reviewing GCC submissions in the form of changes to the NAIC Financial Analysis Handbook. It is unclear how the development of group capital measures by the NAIC will interact with existing capital requirements for U.S. insurance companies.

State insurance laws and regulations require our insurance subsidiaries to establish a special statutory contingency reserve reflected in their statutory financial statements to provide for payable claims and other expenses and purposes in the event of significant economic declines. Annual additions to the statutory contingency reserve must be at least 50% of net earned premiums as defined by state insurance laws and regulations. These contingency reserves generally are held until the earlier of (i) 10 years after which such amounts can be released into surplus or (ii) when loss ratios exceed 35% in which case, the amount above 35% can be released under certain circumstances, although regulators have granted discretionary releases from time to time. However, approval by the NCDOI is required for contingency reserve releases when loss ratios exceed 35%. The establishment of the statutory contingency reserve is funded by premiums that would otherwise generate net earnings that would be reflected in policyholder surplus. This deferral of premiums into the contingency reserve limits our insurance subsidiaries’ ability to pay dividends to stockholders until those contingency reserves are released back into surplus. Our insurance subsidiaries’ statutory contingency reserve was approximately $3,551 million and $3,042 million as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

Although the federal government generally does not directly regulate the insurance business, federal initiatives often have an impact on our business in a variety of ways. From time to time, federal measures

The Dodd-Frank Act made extensive changes to the laws regulating financial services firms and required various federal agencies to adopt a broad range of new implementing rules and regulations.

The Dodd-Frank Act prohibits a creditor from making a residential mortgage loan unless the creditor makes a reasonable and good faith determination that, at the time the loan is consummated, the consumer has a reasonable ability to repay the loan. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which regulates certain aspects of the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services but not the business of insurance. Certain rules and regulations established by the CFPB require mortgage lenders to demonstrate that they have effectively considered the consumer’s ability to repay a mortgage loan, establish when a mortgage may be classified as a Qualified Mortgage (“QM”) and determine when a lender is eligible for a safe harbor as a presumption that the lender has complied with the ability-to-repay requirements. The regulations include the QM Patch for mortgages that comply with certain prohibitions and limitations and meet the GSE underwriting and product guidelines. Mortgages that meet these requirements are deemed to be QMs. The QM Patch permits loans that exceed a DTI ratio of 43% to be eligible for QM status. Many of the loans that qualify under the QM Patch require credit enhancement, of which private mortgage insurance is the predominate form of coverage. On December 29, 2020, the CFPB promulgated two final rules amending the QM Rule: (i) the Amended QM Rule and (ii) the Seasoned QM Final Rule. The effective date of both rules was March 1, 2021, with a mandatory compliance date for the Amended QM Rule of July 1, 2021. However, April 27, 2021, the CFPB promulgated a final rule delaying the mandatory compliance date of the Amended QM Rule until October 1, 2022 and noting that the Amended QM Rule and Seasoned QM Final Rule would be reconsidered at a later time. As provided under the final rule, the prior 43% DTI-based QM Rule definition, the new price-based Average Prime Offer Rate (“APOR”) definition and the QM Patch all remained available to lenders for loan applications received prior to October 1, 2022. However, on April 8, 2021, Fannie Mae issued Lender Letter 2021-09 and Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2021-13 stating that due to the requirements of the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (“PSPAs”) between the Treasury Department and each of the GSEs they would only acquire loans that meet the new price-based (APOR) definition set forth under the Amended QM Rule for applications received on or after July 1, 2021. We believe that loans which previously qualified under the 43% DTI-based QM Rule definition and the QM Patch will continue to qualify under the new price-based (APOR) definition and therefore we expect little impact from this change.

In October 2022, the SEC adopted final rules requiring the recovery of erroneously awarded compensation as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. The rules will, among other things, require national securities exchanges to establish listing standards that would require listed companies to adopt and comply with a compensation recovery policy, often known as a clawback policy, and require listed companies to provide disclosure about such policies and how they are being implemented. In the event a company is required to prepare an accounting restatement, including to correct an error that would result in a material misstatement if the error were corrected in the current period or left uncorrected in the current period, the company must recover from any current or former executive officers incentive-based compensation that was erroneously awarded during the three years preceding the date such a restatement was required. The recoverable amount would be the amount of incentive-based compensation received in excess of the amount that otherwise would have been received had it been determined based on the restated financial measure. The updated listing standards related to clawback policies will become effective no later than November 28, 2023. Listed companies will be required to adopt a clawback policy no later than 60 days following the applicable listing standards effective date and make the required disclosure in proxy and information statements, as well as annual reports filed after the adoption of their clawback policy. We are currently awaiting the finalization of the relevant listing standards and are evaluating our existing clawback policy to determine if any updates are required.

On August 25, 2022, the SEC adopted final rules implementing the pay versus performance requirement as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. The rules require public companies to disclose the relationship between their executive compensation and financial performance in proxy or information statements in which executive compensation disclosures are required. Under the new rules, companies will be required to provide a table disclosing specified executive compensation and financial performance measures for the five most recently completed fiscal years after an initial phase-in period. Companies are also required to describe the relationship between the actual executive compensation paid, as defined by the new rules, and each of the financial performance measures in the table, as well as the company’s total shareholder return (“TSR”) and the TSR of its selected peer group. In addition, companies are required to disclose three to seven financial performance measures they determine to be the most important performance measures for linking executive compensation actually paid to company performance. These final rules are effective in proxy and information statements for fiscal years ending on or after December 16, 2022 and will be reflected in our proxy statement for the year ended December 31, 2022.

As the largest purchasers of conventional mortgage loans, and therefore, the main beneficiaries of private mortgage insurance, the GSEs impose eligibility requirements that private mortgage insurers must satisfy in order to be approved to insure loans purchased by the GSEs. Effective December 31, 2015, each GSE adopted the original PMIERs, which set forth operational and financial requirements that mortgage insurers must meet in order to remain eligible. On September 27, 2018, the GSEs issued revisions to the PMIERs, which became effective March 31, 2019. The PMIERs aim to ensure that approved insurers possess the financial and operational capacity to serve as strong counterparties to the GSEs throughout various market conditions. The PMIERs are comprehensive, covering virtually all aspects of the business and operations of a private mortgage insurer of GSE loans, including internal risk management and quality controls, underwriting, claim processing and loss mitigation among others. In addition, the PMIERs require private mortgage insurers to obtain the prior consent of the GSEs before taking certain actions, which may include entering into various intercompany agreements and commuting or reinsuring risk, among others. As of December 31, 2022, we met the PMIERs financial and operational requirements and currently hold a reasonable amount in excess of the financial requirements.

The PMIERs include financial requirements for mortgage insurers under which a mortgage insurer’s “Available Assets” (generally only the most liquid assets of an insurer) must meet or exceed “Minimum Required Assets” (which are based on an insurer’s RIF and are calculated from tables of factors with several risk dimensions and are subject to a floor amount) and otherwise generally establish when a mortgage insurer is qualified to issue coverage that will be acceptable to the respective GSE for acquisition of high LTV mortgages. The GSEs may amend or waive PMIERs at their discretion, impose additional conditions or restrictions on us and also have broad discretion to interpret PMIERs, which could impact the calculation of our “Available Assets” and/or “Minimum Required Assets”.

The operational PMIERs requirements include standards that govern the relationship between the GSEs and approved insurers and are designed to ensure that approved insurers operate under uniform guidelines, such as claim processing timelines. They include quality control requirements that are designed to ensure that approved insurers have a strong internal risk management infrastructure and senior management oversight.

During 2020 and 2021, the GSEs issued several amendments to PMIERS. Many of the provisions are no longer applicable but for loans that became non-performing due to a COVID-19 hardship, PMIERs was temporarily amended with respect to each non-performing loan that (i) had an initial missed monthly payment occurring on or after March 1, 2020 and prior to April 1, 2021 or (ii) is subject to a forbearance plan 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 the GSEs. The risk-based required asset amount factor for the non-performing loan is the greater of (a) the applicable risk-based required asset amount factor for a performing loan were it not delinquent, and (b) the product of a 0.30 multiplier and the

Under PMIERs, we are subject to these operational and financial requirements. Each approved mortgage insurer is required to provide the GSEs with an annual certification and a quarterly report as to its compliance with PMIERs. As of December 31, 2022, we had estimated available assets of $5,206 million against $3,156 million net required assets under PMIERs compared to available assets of $5,077 million against $3,074 million net required assets as of December 31, 2021. The sufficiency ratio as of December 31, 2022 was 165% or $2,050 million above the published PMIERs requirements, compared to 165% or $2,003 million above the published PMIERs requirements as of December 31, 2021. Sufficiency was above the requirements imposed by the GSE Restrictions that require us to maintain a PMIERs sufficiency ratio of 120% in 2022 and 115% in 2021. For information with respect to higher PMIERs sufficiency ratios in future periods as a result of the GSE Restrictions, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors —Risks Relating to Our Business— If we are unable to continue to meet the requirements mandated by PMIERs, the GSE Restrictions and any additional restrictions imposed on us by the GSEs, we may not be eligible to write new insurance on loans acquired by the GSEs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.”

In addition, our PMIERs required assets as of December 31, 2022 benefited from the application of a 0.30 multiplier applied to the risk-based required asset amount factor for certain non-performing loans.

In their respective letters approving credit for reinsurance against PMIERs financial requirements, the GSEs require our mortgage insurance subsidiary not to exceed a maximum statutory RTC ratio of 18:1 or they reserve the right to reevaluate the amount of PMIERs credit for reinsurance and other CRT transactions available under PMIERs indicated in their approval letters. Freddie Mac has also imposed additional requirements on our option to commute these reinsurance agreements. Both GSEs reserved the right to periodically review the reinsurance transactions for treatment under PMIERs.

In September 2020, subsequent to the issuance of our 2025 Senior Notes, the GSEs imposed the GSE Restrictions with respect to capital on our business. In May 2021, in connection with their conditional approval of the consummation of our IPO, the GSEs confirmed the GSE Restrictions will remain in effect until the following collective GSE Conditions are met: (i) EMICO obtains a “BBB+”/“Baa1” (or higher) rating from Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s or Fitch for two consecutive quarters and (ii) our Parent achieves a debt leverage ratio (excluding U.S. life business equity) that is less than 25% and a cash coverage ratio that is at least 2.5 for two consecutive quarters. Prior to the satisfaction of the GSE Conditions, the GSE Restrictions require (a) EMICO to maintain 115% of PMIERs Minimum Required Assets through 2021, 120% during 2022 and 125% thereafter, (b) the Company to retain available liquidity the greater of either 13.5% of outstanding EHI debt or $300 million of its holding company cash that can be drawn down exclusively for Company debt service or to contribute to EMICO to meet its regulatory capital needs including PMIERs and (c) prior written approval must be received from the GSEs before any additional debt issuance by either EMICO or the Company. In addition, EMICO is not permitted to make any dividends or distributions that would cause the PMIERs Available Assets to fall below the PMIERs Minimum Required Assets percentages set forth in clause (a) above. In addition, in calculating PMIERs Available Assets relative to any dividend or distribution, PMIERs Available Assets shall be calculated consistent with the capital preservation provisions of the PMIERs Amendment, and any amendments thereto. Our Parent expects to continue own at least 80% of EHI common stock. However, if our Parent no longer owns directly or indirectly 50% or more of our common stock, Fannie Mae agreed to reconsider the GSE Restrictions. In addition, in the event that the Parent were to hold less than 80% of our common

EHI maintained the requisite ratings for two consecutive quarters prior to the end of 2022. As of December 31, 2022, Genworth believes that they achieved their financial metrics for the quarters ended September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2022. Once confirmed by the GSEs, EHI will no longer be subject to GSE Restrictions and Conditions.

Although we expect we will continue to retain our eligibility status with the GSEs, there can be no assurance these conditions will continue. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—If we are unable to continue to meet the requirements mandated by PMIERs, the GSE Restrictions and any additional restrictions imposed on us by the GSEs, we may not be eligible to write new insurance on loans acquired by the GSEs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Trends and Conditions.”

We and other private mortgage insurers are impacted by federal regulation of residential mortgage transactions with respect to mortgage originators and lenders, purchasers of mortgage loans such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and governmental insurers such as the FHA and the VA. Mortgage origination and servicing transactions are subject to compliance with various state and federal laws, including RESPA, HOPA, Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), the Fair Housing Act, the Truth In Lending Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (the “GLB Act”), the Dodd-Frank Act and others, including those discussed in this section. Among other things, these laws and their implementing regulations prohibit payments for referrals of settlement service business, require fairness and non-discrimination in granting or facilitating the granting of insurance, govern the circumstances under which companies may obtain and use consumer credit information, and provide for other consumer protections. Additionally, changes in federal housing legislation and other laws and regulations that affect the demand for private mortgage insurance may have a material effect on private mortgage insurers. For example, in December 2020, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) promulgated the Enterprise Capital Framework that imposes a new capital framework on the GSEs, including risk-based and leverage capital requirements and buffers in excess of regulatory minimums that can be drawn down in periods of financial stress. This rule is part of the process to potentially end the conservatorships of the GSEs. The final rule could cause the GSEs to increase their guarantee pricing in order to meet the new capital requirements.

On December 14, 2022, the SEC adopted amendments to Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and added new disclosure requirements to enhance investor protections against insider trading. The amendments add new conditions to the availability of the affirmative defense to insider trading provided by Rule 10b5-1(c), including cooling-off periods for directors, officers and persons other than issuers. The amendments create new disclosure requirements regarding a company’s insider trading policies and procedures and the adoption and termination (including modification) of Rule 10b5-1 and certain other trading arrangements by directors and officers. The amendments also create new disclosure requirements for executive and director compensation regarding certain equity compensation awards granted in close proximity to a company’s disclosure of material nonpublic information. Companies must also identify transactions made pursuant to a plan that is intended to satisfy the affirmative defense conditions of Rule 10b5-1(c). Beneficial ownership reports filed on or after April 1, 2023 will be required to comply with the amendments and public companies will be required to comply with the new disclosure requirements in periodic reports and any proxy or information statements for full fiscal periods beginning on or after April 1, 2023.

The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (“RESPA”) applies to most residential mortgages insured by private mortgage insurers. Mortgage insurance is considered a “settlement service” for purposes of loans subject to RESPA. Subject to limited exceptions, RESPA precludes us from providing services to mortgage lenders or other settlement service providers free of charge, charging fees for services that are lower than their reasonable or fair market value and paying fees for services that others provide that are higher than their reasonable or fair market value. In addition, RESPA prohibits persons from giving or accepting any portion or percentage of a charge for a real estate settlement service, other than for services actually performed. Although many states prohibit mortgage insurers from giving rebates, RESPA has been interpreted to cover many non-fee services as well. Mortgage insurers and their customers are subject to the possible sanctions of this law, which may be enforced by the CFPB, state insurance departments, state attorneys general and other enforcement authorities.

HOPA provides for the automatic termination, or cancellation upon a borrower’s request, of the borrower’s obligation to pay for private mortgage insurance upon satisfaction of certain conditions. HOPA applies to owner-occupied residential mortgage loans regardless of lien priority and to borrower-paid mortgage insurance closed after July 29, 1999. HOPA requires lenders to automatically terminate a borrower’s obligation to pay for mortgage insurance coverage once the LTV ratio reaches 78% of the original value. A borrower generally may also request cancellation of mortgage insurance from their lender once the actual payments reduce the loan balance to 80% of the home’s original value. For borrower-initiated cancellation of mortgage insurance, the borrower must have a “good payment history” as defined by HOPA.

FCRA imposes restrictions on the permissible use of credit report information and requires mortgage insurance companies to provide “adverse action” notices to consumers in the event an application for mortgage insurance is declined or offered at less than the best available rate for the loan program applied for due to information contained in a consumer’s credit report. There has been past class action litigation over these FCRA adverse action notices involving the mortgage insurance industry, including court-approved settlements.

The Fair Housing Act generally prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions or privileges in residential real estate-related transactions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. Numerous courts have held that the Fair Housing Act prohibits discriminatory insurance practices. In addition, both the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and the CFPB have pursued claims under the Fair Housing Act on a disparate impact theory as well. There has been litigation over the Fair Housing Act involving other mortgage insurers, resulting in some cases in court-approved settlements.

The CFPB Servicing Rule established servicer requirements for handling loans that are in default, handling escrow accounts, responding to borrower assertions of error and loss mitigation in the event that a borrower defaults. A provision of the required loss mitigation procedures prohibits a loan holder or servicers from commencing foreclosure until 120 days after the borrower’s delinquency. Since 2014, the CFPB has clarified those rules through subsequent rule makings and provided guidance on how servicers must apply them in certain circumstances, including recent clarifications as a result of COVID-19.

On March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was signed into law. On April 3, 2020, the CFPB, the National Credit Union Administration, the Federal Banking Agencies and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors issued a joint statement to clarify existing flexibility in the mortgage servicing rules that services can use to help consumers during the COVID-19 emergency, including those applicable to mortgage forbearance options under the CARES Act. The joint statement addressed flexibility around required notices from servicers and the existing requirements related to continuity of contact and reasonable diligence steps required when the forbearance ends. This guidance could reduce claims and

The CARES Act provides financial assistance for businesses and individuals and targeted regulatory relief for financial institutions. Among many other things, for up to 120 days after the termination date of the national emergency concerning COVID-19 declared by the Trump Administration on March 13, 2020 under the National Emergencies Act, the CARES Act required mortgage servicers to provide up to 180 days of forbearance for borrowers with a federally backed mortgage loan who asserted they had experienced a financial hardship related to COVID-19. The forbearance could be extended for an additional 180 days, up to a year in total, or shortened at the request of the borrower. In addition, on February 25, 2021, the FHFA announced that borrowers with a mortgage backed by the GSEs who are in an active COVID-19 forbearance plan as of February 28, 2021 may request up to two additional forbearance extensions for a maximum of 18 months of total forbearance relief. In addition, the CARES Act provides that furnishers of credit reporting information, including servicers, should continue to report a loan as current to credit reporting agencies if the loan is subject to a payment accommodation, such as forbearance, so long as the borrower abides by the terms of the accommodation. Many servicers have updated and improved their reporting to private mortgage insurers for when a loan is covered by forbearance.

The foreclosure moratorium for mortgages that are purchased by the GSEs expired on July 31, 2021. However, on June 28, 2021 the CFPB issued a final rule to amend Regulation X of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act effective August 31, 2021 to assist mortgage borrowers affected by the COVID-19 emergency. The final rule established temporary procedural changes that require a loss mitigation review prior to a servicer’s first notice or foreclosure filing on certain mortgages. On June 29, 2021, the FHFA announced that servicers were immediately prohibited from making a first notice or foreclosure filing for mortgages backed by the GSEs that would be prohibited by the CFPB Regulation X Final Rule before it took effect on August 31, 2021. These announcements generally prohibited servicers from starting foreclosures on mortgages purchased by the GSEs until after December 31, 2021.

Private mortgage insurers are also indirectly impacted by federal law and regulation affecting mortgage originators and lenders, purchasers of mortgage loans and governmental insurers. Among the most significant of these laws and regulations are the Dodd-Frank Act QM and the ability-to-repay (“ATR”) Requirement and the qualified residential mortgage (“QRM”) securitization risk retention provisions.

The Dodd-Frank Act ATR Requirement prohibits a creditor from making a residential mortgage loan unless the creditor makes a reasonable and good faith determination that, at the time the loan is consummated, the consumer has a reasonable ability to repay the loan. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act created the CFPB, which regulates certain aspects of the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services but not the business of insurance. Certain rules and regulations established by the CFPB require mortgage lenders to demonstrate that they have effectively considered the consumer’s ability to repay a mortgage loan, establish when a mortgage may be classified as a QM and determine when a lender is eligible for a safe harbor as a presumption that the lender has complied with the ability-to-repay requirements. The regulations include the QM Patch for mortgages that comply with certain prohibitions and limitations and meet the GSE underwriting and product guidelines. Mortgages that meet these requirements are deemed to be QMs. The QM Patch permits loans that exceed a DTI ratio of 43% to be eligible for QM status. Many of the loans that qualify under the QM Patch require credit enhancement, of which private mortgage insurance is the predominate form of coverage. In addition, on December 29, 2020, the CFPB promulgated two final rules amending the QM Rule: (i) the Amended QM Rule and (ii) the Seasoned QM Final Rule. The effective date of both rules was March 1, 2021, with a mandatory compliance date for the Amended QM Rule of July 1, 2021. On April 27, 2021, the CFPB promulgated a final rule delaying the mandatory compliance date of the Amended QM Rule until October

The Dodd-Frank Act separately granted statutory authority to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) (for FHA-insured loans), the VA (for VA-guaranteed loans), the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and Rural Housing Service (“RHS”) to develop their own definitions of a QM in consultation with the CFPB. In December 2013, HUD adopted a separate definition of a QM for loans insured by the FHA. HUD’s QM definition is less restrictive than the CFPB QM Rule in certain respects. To the extent that other government agencies guaranteeing residential mortgage loans may adopt definitions of a QM that are more favorable to lenders and mortgage holders than the CFPB QM Rule, our mortgage insurance business could also be negatively impacted.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires an originator or issuer to retain a specified percentage of the credit risk exposure on securitized mortgages that do not meet the definition of a QRM. As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, in 2015 the Federal Banking Agencies, the FHFA, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and HUD adopted a joint final rule implementing the QRM rules that aligns the definition of a QRM with that of a QM. In December 2019, the Federal Banking Agencies initiated a review of certain provisions of the risk retention rule, including the QRM definition. Among other things, the review allows the Federal Banking Agencies to consider the QRM definition in light of any changes to the QM definition under the QM Rule adopted by the CFPB, which would include the final rule promulgated by the CFPB on December 29, 2020. If the QRM definition is changed in a manner that is unfavorable to us, such as to require a large down payment for a loan to qualify as a QRM, without giving consideration to mortgage insurance in computing LTV ratios, the attractiveness of originating and securitizing loans with lower down payments may be reduced, which may adversely affect the future demand for mortgage insurance.

In 1988, the Basel Committee developed Basel I which set out international benchmarks for assessing banks’ capital adequacy requirements. In 2005, the Basel Committee issued Basel II, which, among other things, sets forth capital treatment of mortgage insurance purchased and held on balance sheet by banks in respect of their origination and securitization activities. Following the financial crisis of 2008, the Basel Committee issued Basel III that established RBC and leverage capital requirements for most United States banking organizations (although banking organizations with less than $10 billion in total assets may now choose to comply with an alternative community bank leverage ratio framework established by the Federal Banking Agencies in 2019).

In December 2017, the Basel Committee published the 2017 Basel III Revisions that were generally targeted for implementation by each participating country by January 1, 2023. Under these revisions to the international framework, banks using the standardized approach to determine their credit risk may consider mortgage insurance in calculating the exposure amount for real estate but will determine the risk-weight for residential mortgages based on the LTV ratio at loan origination, without consideration of mortgage insurance. Under the standardized approach, after the appropriate risk-weight is determined, the existence of mortgage insurance could be considered, but only if the company issuing the insurance has a lower risk-weight than the underlying exposure. Mortgage insurance issued by private companies would not meet this test. Therefore, under the 2017 Basel III Revisions, mortgage insurance could not mitigate credit and lower the capital charge under the standardized approach. It is possible that the Federal Banking Agencies could determine that their current capital rules are at least as stringent as the

Federal and state laws and regulations require financial institutions, including insurance companies, to protect, among other things, the security and confidentiality of consumer financial information and to notify consumers about policies and practices relating to the collection and disclosure of consumer information and policies relating to protecting the security and confidentiality of that information and to notify regulators and consumers in the event of certain data breaches affecting personal information.

Federal and state lawmakers and regulatory bodies may consider additional or more detailed regulations regarding these subjects and the privacy and security of nonpublic personal information, confidential business information, information security systems, and vendors and other third parties that may have access to sensitive data or systems. Furthermore, the issues surrounding data security and the safeguarding of consumers’ protected information are under increasing regulatory scrutiny by state and federal regulators, particularly in light of the number and severity of recent United States companies’ data breaches. The Federal Trade Commission, the DOJ, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”), the SEC and the NAIC have undertaken various studies, reports and actions regarding privacy and data security for entities under their respective supervision. Some states have recently enacted new privacy and information security requirements and new insurance laws that require certain regulated entities to implement and maintain comprehensive information security programs to safeguard the personal information of insureds and enrollees.

The GLB Act and the FCRA impose privacy and information security requirements on financial institutions, including obligations to protect and safeguard consumers’ nonpublic personal information and creditworthiness information, respectively, and limitations on the use and sharing of such information. The GLB Act requires administrative, technical and physical safeguards to ensure the security, confidentiality, integrity and the proper disposal of nonpublic personal information, and the FCRA imposes similar information security requirements regarding the protection of creditworthiness information. The FCRA limits an entity’s ability to disclose creditworthiness information to affiliates and nonaffiliates unless certain notice requirements are met and the consumer does not elect to prevent or “opt out” of the disclosure, and it limits an entity’s ability to use creditworthiness information except for certain authorized purposes. The GLB Act limits a financial institution’s disclosure of nonpublic personal information to unaffiliated third parties unless certain notice requirements are met, and the consumer does not elect to prevent or “opt out” of the disclosure. The GLB Act requires that financial institutions provide privacy notices to their customers. With respect to our business, the GLB Act is enforced by the CFPB and state insurance regulators, and the FCRA is enforced by the CFPB. CFPB regulations implement certain sections of the GLB Act regarding privacy and information security, and state insurance regulations also implement certain sections of the GLB Act regarding privacy and information security, including requirements to notify individuals regarding certain data security incidents that affect their nonpublic personal information. Certain states have implemented certain requirements of the GLB Act, including North Carolina through the Consumer and Customer Information Privacy Act.

Many states have enacted privacy and data security laws that impose compliance obligations beyond those imposed by the GLB Act, including obligations to protect sensitive personal information. On July 25, 2019, New York enacted the Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act to increase information security requirements regarding New York residents’ personal information. This law became effective March 21, 2020. All fifty states also require entities to provide notification to affected state residents and, in certain instances, state regulators, such as state attorneys general or state insurance

The NYDFS published initial cybersecurity regulation effective on March 1, 2017, which, along with subsequent guidance, requires all banks, insurance companies, and other financial services institutions and licensees regulated by the NYDFS, including several of our subsidiaries, to establish a cybersecurity program. The NYDFS cybersecurity regulation includes specific technical safeguards as well as requirements regarding governance, incident planning, training, data management, system testing and regulator notification in the event of certain cybersecurity events. In addition, on March 2, 2021, Virginia enacted the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (“VCDPA”) which became effective on January 1, 2023. The VCDPA borrows heavily from the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”) and the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (“EU GDPR”) and includes exemptions that may be broader than the CCPA in certain respects, including an exemption for any data or financial institution subject to the GLB Act. Other states are also working on legislation related to consumer data privacy similar to the CCPA.

In October 2017, the NAIC adopted a new Insurance Data Security Model Law, which establishes model standards for states to adopt regarding data security and notification of data breaches applicable to insurance licensees in states adopting such law, with provisions that are generally consistent with the NYDFS cybersecurity regulation discussed above. As with all NAIC model laws, this Insurance Data Security Model Law must be adopted by a state before becoming law in such state. The Insurance Data Security Model Law has not been adopted by a majority of the states. North Carolina has not adopted a version of the Insurance Data Security Model Law. We anticipate that more states will begin adopting the Insurance Data Security Model Law, sometimes with state-specific modifications, in the near term, although it is not yet an accreditation standard. The NAIC has also adopted a guidance document that sets forth twelve principles for effective insurance regulation of cybersecurity risks based on similar regulatory guidance adopted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the “Roadmap for Cybersecurity Consumer Protections,” which describes the protections to which the NAIC believes consumers should be entitled from their insurance companies, agents and other businesses concerning the collection and maintenance of consumers’ personal information, as well as what consumers should expect when such information has been involved in a data breach. We expect cybersecurity risk management, prioritization and reporting to continue to be an area of significant regulatory focus by such regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations.

The CCPA, effective as of January 1, 2020, affords California residents expanded privacy protections and control over the collection, use and sharing of their personal information. The CCPA has been amended, and it is possible it will be amended again by other pending legislative initiatives or by popular referendum. The CCPA requires certain companies doing business in California to disclose to California consumers information regarding the companies’ privacy practices and the privacy rights that businesses must offer to California residents to access and delete their personal information.

As noted above, state governments, Congress and agencies may consider and enact additional legislation or promulgate regulations governing privacy, cybersecurity and data breach reporting requirements. We cannot predict whether such legislation will be enacted, or what impact, if any, such legislation may have on our business practices, results of operations or financial condition.

Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act are available, without charge, on our website, www.enactmi.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after we file or furnish such reports with the SEC. The public may read and copy any electronic materials we file or furnish with the SEC at the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov. Copies of our SEC filed or furnished reports are also available, without charge, from Enact Investor Relations, 8325 Six Forks Road, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27615.

Our website also includes the charters of our Audit Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, Risk Committee, Independent Capital Committee and Compensation Committee, our Governance Principles and our company’s code of ethics. Copies of these materials also are available, without charge, from Enact Investor Relations at the address above.

In furtherance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s respective charter requirements, each GSE adopted PMIERs effective December 31, 2015. PMIERs has since been amended on several occasions, including as a result of COVID-19 (as amended, the “PMIERs Amendment”).

The PMIERs include financial requirements for mortgage insurers under which a mortgage insurer’s “Available Assets” (generally only the most liquid assets of an insurer) must meet or exceed “Minimum Required Assets” (which are based on an insurer’s RIF and are calculated from tables of factors with several risk dimensions and are subject to a floor amount) and otherwise generally establish when a mortgage insurer is qualified to issue coverage that will be acceptable to the respective GSE for acquisition of high LTV mortgages. The GSEs may amend or waive PMIERs at their discretion, impose additional conditions or restrictions on us and also have broad discretion to interpret PMIERs, which could impact the calculation of our “Available Assets” and/or “Minimum Required Assets.” The amount of capital that EMICO may be required in the future to maintain the “Minimum Required Assets” as defined in PMIERs, and operate our business is dependent upon, among other things: (i) the way PMIERs are applied and interpreted by the GSEs and the FHFA; (ii) the future performance of the housing market; (iii) our generation of earnings in our business, “Available Assets” and “Minimum Required Assets,” reducing RIF and reducing delinquencies as anticipated, and writing anticipated amounts and types of new mortgage insurance business; and (iv) our overall financial performance, capital and liquidity levels. Depending on our actual experience, the amount of capital required under PMIERs may be higher than currently anticipated. In the absence of a premium increase for new business, if we hold more capital relative to insured loans, our returns will be lower. We may be unable to increase premium rates for various reasons, principally due to competition. Our inability to increase the capital as required in the anticipated timeframes and on the anticipated terms, and to realize the anticipated benefits, could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition. More particularly, our ability to continue to meet the PMIERs financial requirements and maintain a prudent amount of capital in excess of those requirements, given the dynamic nature of asset valuations and requirement changes over time, is dependent upon, among other things: (i) our ability to complete CRT transactions on our anticipated terms and timetable, which, as applicable, are subject to market conditions, third-party approvals and other actions (including approval by the GSEs), and other factors that are outside of our control and (ii) our ability to contribute holding company cash or other sources of capital to satisfy the portion of the financial requirements that are not satisfied through these transactions. See “—CRT transactions may not be available, affordable or adequate to protect us against losses.” The GSEs may amend or waive PMIERs at their discretion, and also have broad discretion to interpret PMIERs, which could impact the calculation of our “Available Assets” and/or “Minimum Required Assets.”

The PMIERs Amendment implemented both permanent and temporary revisions to PMIERs. For loans that became non-performing due to a COVID-19 hardship, PMIERs was amended with respect to each non-performing loan that (i) had an initial missed monthly payment occurring on or after March 1, 2020 and prior to April 1, 2021 or (ii) is subject to a forbearance plan 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 the GSEs. The risk-based required asset amount factor for a non-performing loan is the greater of (a) the applicable risk-based required asset amount factor for a performing loan were it not delinquent, and (b) the product of a 0.30 multiplier and the applicable risk-based required asset amount factor for a non-performing loan. In the case of (i) above, absent the loan being subject to a forbearance plan described in (ii) above, the 0.30 multiplier will be applicable for no longer than three calendar months beginning with the month in which the loan became a non-performing loan due to having missed two monthly payments. Loans subject to a forbearance plan described in (ii) above include those that are either in a repayment plan or loan modification trial period following the forbearance plan unless reported

Our assessment of PMIERs compliance is based on a number of factors, including our understanding of the GSEs’ interpretation of the PMIERs financial requirements. Although we believe we have sufficient capital as required under PMIERs and we remain an approved insurer, there can be no assurance these conditions will continue. The GSEs require EMICO not to exceed a maximum ratio of RIF to statutory capital (“RTC ratio”) of 18:1 or they reserve the right to reevaluate the amount of PMIERs credit for reinsurance and other CRT transactions available under PMIERs indicated in their approval letters. There can be no assurance we will continue to meet the conditions contained in the GSE letters approving credit for reinsurance and other CRT transactions against PMIERs financial requirements. Freddie Mac has also imposed additional requirements on our option to commute these reinsurance agreements. Both GSEs reserved the right to periodically review the reinsurance transactions for treatment under PMIERs. If we are unable to continue to meet the requirements mandated by PMIERs, the GSE Restrictions and any additional restrictions imposed on us by the GSEs, whether because the GSEs amend them or the GSEs’ interpretation of the financial requirements requires us to hold amounts of capital that are higher than we have planned or otherwise, we may not be eligible to write new insurance on loans acquired by the GSEs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Additionally, compliance with PMIERs requires us to seek the GSEs’ prior approval before taking many actions, including implementing certain new products or services, entering into inter-company agreements among others. PMIERs’ prior approval requirements could prohibit, materially modify or delay us in our intended course of action. The GSEs may modify or change their interpretation of terms they require us to include in our mortgage insurance coverage for loans purchased by them, requiring us to modify our terms of coverage or operational procedures to remain an approved insurer, and such changes could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition. It is possible the GSEs could, in their own discretion, require additional limitations and/or conditions on our activities and practices that are not currently in PMIERs for us to remain an approved insurer.

In September 2020, subsequent to the issuance of our $750 million aggregate principal amount of Senior Notes due 2025, the GSEs imposed certain additional restrictions with respect to capital on our business. In May 2021, in connection with their conditional approval of the consummation of our IPO, the GSEs confirmed the GSE Restrictions will remain in effect until the following collective conditions (the “GSE Conditions”) are met: (i) EMICO obtains a “BBB+”/“Baa1” (or higher) rating from Standard & Poor’s Financial Services, LLC (“Standard & Poor’s”), Moody’s Investor Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”) or Fitch Ratings, Inc. (“Fitch”) for two consecutive quarters and (ii) our Parent achieves a debt leverage ratio (excluding U.S. life business equity) that is less than 25% and a cash coverage ratio that is at least 2.5 for two consecutive quarters. Prior to the satisfaction of the GSE Conditions, the GSE Restrictions require (a) EMICO to maintain 120% of PMIERs Minimum Required Assets through 2022 and 125% thereafter, (b) the Company to retain available liquidity the greater of either 13.5% of outstanding EHI debt or $300 million of its holding company cash that can be drawn down exclusively for Company debt service or to contribute to EMICO to meet its regulatory capital needs including PMIERs, and (c) prior written approval must be received from the GSEs before any additional debt issuance by either EMICO or the Company. In addition, EMICO is not permitted to make any dividends or distributions that would cause the PMIERs Available Assets to fall below the PMIERs Minimum Required Assets percentages set forth in clause (a) above. In addition, in calculating PMIERs Available Assets relative to any dividend or distribution, PMIERs Available Assets shall be calculated consistent with the capital preservation provisions of the PMIERs Amendment, and any amendments thereto.

EHI maintained the requisite ratings for two consecutive quarters prior to the end of 2022. In addition, Genworth believes that they achieved their financial metrics for the quarters ended September 30, 2022

Additional requirements or conditions imposed by the GSEs could limit our operating flexibility and the areas in which we may write new business and may adversely impact our competitive position and our business, the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends and our ability to pay down debts. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Trends and Conditions.”

Losses in our mortgage insurance business generally result from events, such as a borrower’s reduction of income, unemployment, underemployment, divorce, illness, inability to manage credit or a change in interest rate levels or home values, that reduce a borrower’s willingness or ability to continue to make mortgage payments. Rising unemployment rates and deterioration in economic conditions across the United States or in specific regional economies, generally increase the likelihood of borrower defaults and can also adversely affect housing values, which increases our risk of loss.

An imbalance in supply and demand, supply-chain disruptions and a tightening labor market have led to 40-year high inflation in the United States. To combat persistent high inflation, the U.S. Federal Reserve tightened monetary policy throughout 2022, which led to the highest interest rates in over a decade and could be a contributing factor on whether the United States goes into a recession in 2023. It is unclear what the ultimate impact will be from the tightening monetary policy implemented by the U.S. Federal Reserve, but it is possible interest rate hikes could result in a slowdown in economic growth or a U.S. recession. Unemployment claims generally have returned to pre-COVID-19 levels, but the labor participation rate continues to be suppressed. Variability in consumer confidence due in part to high inflation and elevated interest rates, along with developments related to the U.S. federal debt ceiling, continue to create a backdrop of uncertainty in the overall macroeconomic environment. Economic conditions, including unemployment rates and housing values, may also be adversely affected by the current or anticipated impact of climate change, including any regulations intended to address it. These circumstances could lead to an increase in defaults and losses within our portfolio.

Unfavorable economic conditions, such as those described above, could also impact home prices. A decline in home values typically makes it more difficult for borrowers to sell or refinance their homes, increasing the likelihood of a default followed by a claim if borrowers experience a job loss or other life events that reduce their incomes or increase their expenses. In addition, declines in home values may also decrease the willingness of borrowers with sufficient resources to make mortgage payments when their mortgage balances exceed the values of their homes. Declines in home values typically increase the severity of any claims we may pay. The seasonally adjusted Purchase-Only U.S. Home Price Index of 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 8.2% in November 2022, after increasing by 17.5%, and 11.6% in 2021 and 2020, respectively. Recent home price appreciation coupled with high interest rates, has placed pressure on affordability. We have seen home prices begin to decline in latter half of 2022. Given this steady rise in such home prices from 2016 through 2019 and steep rise in home prices in 2020 and 2021, we could experience a higher frequency and severity of defaults on more recent vintages should home values continue to decline in 2023 or subsequent years. Any of these events may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Housing values could also decline due to specific trends that would affect the housing and mortgage markets, such as changes in supply or demand for homes, changes in homebuyers’ expectations for potential future home value appreciation, increased restrictions or costs for obtaining mortgage credit due to tightened underwriting standards, tax policy, regulatory developments, higher interest rates and customers’ liquidity issues. Declining housing values may impact the effectiveness of our loss

The amount of the loss we could suffer depends in part on whether the home of a borrower who defaults on a mortgage can be sold for an amount that will cover the unpaid principal balance, interest and the expenses of the sale. In previous economic slowdowns in the United States, we experienced a pronounced weakness in the housing market, as well as declines in home prices. These economic slowdowns and the resulting impact on the housing market drove high levels of delinquencies. Mortgage forbearance programs and any delays in foreclosure processes could cause our losses to increase as expenses accrue for longer periods or if the value of foreclosed homes further decline during such delays; however, for new loans originated and insured on or after October 1, 2014, our mortgage insurance policies limit the number of months of unpaid interest and associated expenses that are included in the mortgage insurance claim amount to a maximum of 36 months. If we experience an increase in the number or the cost of delinquencies or losses that are higher than expected, including as a result of borrowers’ exit from forbearance programs upon such borrowers reaching the maximum term of forbearance, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

The financial markets, both globally and within the United States continue to feel the aftereffects of COVID-19. While most pandemic-related safety measures (stay at home orders, travel restrictions, business closures, etc.) have ended, the markets are still feeling the impact of inflation and home price appreciation. FEMA has not rescinded the state of emergency status associated with COVID-19 in any of the domestic states or jurisdictions.

During 2020 and 2021, the federal government offered forbearance options for borrowers impacted by COVID-19. Many of these programs are still in effect, which could serve to delay emergence of foreclosures on current delinquencies. Any delays in foreclosure, could cause our losses to increase as interest and expenses accrue for longer periods or if the value of foreclosed homes decline during such foreclosure delays. If we experience an increase in claim severity resulting in claim amounts that are higher than expected, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected. In addition, the expiration or discontinuation of any governmental or GSE forbearance or foreclosure relief program could further exacerbate the financial condition of borrowers on loans we insure or economic conditions generally, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. While we have seen cure experience on COVID-19-related delinquencies that is above our expectations, uncertainty still remains as to the timing and ultimate severity of COVID-19-related delinquencies as a result of the continued availability of forbearance and lack of foreclosure experience and the impact it will have on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

COVID-19 could continue to impact our business, subjecting us to the following risks:

Our practice, consistent with industry practice and SAP applicable to insurance companies, is to establish loss reserves in our consolidated U.S. GAAP financial statements based on claim rates and severity for loans that servicers have reported to us as being in default, which is typically after the second missed payment. We also establish incurred but not reported (“IBNR”) reserves for estimated losses incurred on loans in default that have not yet been reported to us by servicers.

The establishment of loss reserves is subject to inherent uncertainty and requires significant judgment and numerous assumptions by management. Changes in assumptions or deviations of actual experience for assumptions can have material impacts on our loss reserves and net income (loss). Thus, our loss estimates may vary widely from quarter to quarter. We establish loss reserves using our best estimates of claim rates and severity to estimate the ultimate losses on loans reported to us as being in default as of the end of each reporting period. The sources of uncertainty affecting the estimates are numerous and include both internal and external factors. Internal factors include, but are not limited to, changes in the mix of exposures, loss mitigation activities and claim settlement practices. Significant external factors include changes in general economic conditions, including home prices, unemployment/underemployment, interest rates, tax policy, credit availability, government housing policies, government and GSE loss mitigation and mortgage forbearance programs, state foreclosure timelines, GSE and state foreclosure moratoriums and types of mortgage products. For example, during recessionary periods in the past, accompanied by increased unemployment and declining home prices, we have experienced higher delinquencies and increased losses. Because our assumptions relate to these factors that are not known in advance, change over time, are difficult to accurately predict and are inherently uncertain, we cannot determine with precision the ultimate amounts we will pay for actual claims or the timing of those payments. Even in a stable economic environment, the actual claim payments we make may be substantially different and even materially exceed the amount of our corresponding loss reserves for such claims. Small changes in assumptions or small deviations of actual experience from assumptions can have, and in the past have had, material impacts on our reserves, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, sudden and/or unexpected deterioration of economic conditions, may cause our estimates of loss reserves to be materially understated. Our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity could be adversely impacted if, and to the extent, our actual losses are greater than our loss and IBNR reserves.

We saw a significant increase in new delinquencies from borrower forbearance since the onset of COVID-19. While a large portion of these delinquencies have cured at higher levels than our expectations, reserves recorded related to borrower forbearance rely on a high degree of estimation and assumptions that lack comparable historic data. Therefore, it is possible we could have higher contractual obligations related to these loss reserves if these delinquencies do not perform as we expect. The impact of COVID-19 on the number of delinquencies, our losses incurred and loss reserves will be influenced by

Further, consistent with industry practice, our reserving method does not take account of losses that could occur from insured loans that are not in default. Thus, future potential losses that may develop from loans not currently in default are not reflected in our financial statements, except in the case where we are required to establish a premium deficiency reserve. As a result, future losses on loans that are not currently in default may have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity if, and when, such losses emerge.

We regularly review our reserves and associated assumptions as part of our ongoing assessment of our business performance and risks. If we conclude that our reserves are insufficient to cover actual or expected claim payments as a result of changes in experience, assumptions or otherwise, we would be required to increase our reserves and incur charges in the period in which we make the determination, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

For additional information on reserves, including the financial impact of some of these risks, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Estimates.”

We employ models to, among other uses, price our mortgage insurance products, calculate reserves, value assets and generate projections used to estimate future pre-tax income, as well as to evaluate risk, determine internal capital requirements and perform stress testing. These models rely on estimates and projections that are inherently uncertain, may use data and/or assumptions that do not adequately reflect recent experience and relevant industry data, and may not operate as intended. The models require accurate data, including financial statements, credit reports or other financial information, and reliance on such data could result in unexpected losses, reputational damage or other effects that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, if any of our models contain programming or other errors, are ineffective, use data provided by third parties that is incorrect, or if we are unable to obtain relevant data from third parties, our processes could be negatively affected. The models may prove to be less predictive than we expect for a variety of reasons, including economic conditions that develop differently than we forecast, unique conditions for which we do not have good historical comparators, unexpected economic and unemployment conditions that arise, changes in the law or in the PMIERs, issues arising in the construction, implementation, interpretation or use of the models or other programs, the use of inaccurate assumptions or use of short-term financial metrics that do not reveal long-term trends. The limitations of our models may be material and could lead us to make wrong or sub-optimal decisions in aspects of our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, from time to time we seek to improve our actuarial and financial models, and the conversion process may result in material changes to assumptions and financial results. The models we employ are complex, which increases our risk of error in their design, implementation or use. The associated input data, assumptions and calculations, and the controls we have in place to mitigate these risks may not be effective in all cases. The risks related to our models often increase when we change assumptions and/or methodologies, add or change modeling platforms, or implement model changes under time constraints. These risks are exacerbated when the process for assumption changes strains our overall governance and timing around our financial reporting. We intend to continue developing our modeling capabilities. During or after the implementation of these enhancements, we may discover errors or other deficiencies in existing models, assumptions and/or methodologies. For example, in the future we may either use additional, more granular information we expect to receive through enhancements in our reserving model or we may employ more simplified reserving approaches, and either approach may

The United States private mortgage insurance industry is highly competitive. We believe the principal competitive factors in the sale of our products are price, reputation, customer relationships, financial strength ratings and service.

There are currently six active mortgage insurers in the United States, including us. Competition on price remains highly competitive. We monitor various competitive, risk and economic factors while seeking to balance both profitability and market share considerations in developing our pricing strategies. We have and may again in the future reduce certain of our rates, which may reduce our premium yield (net premiums earned divided by the average IIF) over time as older mortgage insurance coverage with higher premium rates run off and new mortgage insurance coverage with lower premium rates are written. In addition, as a result of the current macroeconomic environment, we have implemented pricing changes that we believe align our risk and return profile.

By mid-2019, the use of opaque, proprietary risk-based pricing models became widespread in the mortgage insurance industry. As opposed to traditional rate card pricing, mortgage insurance premium rates in these risk-based plans are visible only to customers and cannot be seen by competitors. In addition, our customers use of technology solutions to deliver rate quotes from mortgage insurers has placed an additional emphasis on price, including emerging tools that provide the ability to automate the selection of a mortgage insurance provider based on price alone. These factors may result in mortgage insurance companies responding aggressively resulting in further lowering of premiums. However, risk-based plans are designed to also allow mortgage insurers to price risk more effectively and provide the ability to manage the credit risk and geographic makeup of their NIW.

In addition, not all of our mortgage insurance products have the same return on capital profile. To the extent that some of our competitors are willing to set lower pricing and accept lower returns than we find acceptable, we may lose business opportunities, and this may affect our overall business relationship with certain customers. If we, in response to competitor actions, lower pricing on these products, we will experience a similar reduction in returns on capital. Depending upon the degree to which we undertake or match such pricing practices or otherwise reduce our rates due to competition, there may be a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

One or more of our competitors may seek to capture increased market share by reducing pricing, offering alternative coverage and product options, loosening their underwriting guidelines or relaxing risk management policies, any of which could improve their competitive positions in the industry and negatively impact our ability to achieve our business goals. Specifically, such competitive moves could result in a loss of customers, require us to lower premiums or adopt riskier credit guidelines in order to remain competitive, or implement other changes that could lower our revenues, increase the risk of the loans we insure or increase our expenses. If we are unable to compete effectively against our competitors and attract and retain our target customers, our revenue may be adversely impacted, which could adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations and ability to grow our business.

With the GSEs in a prolonged conservatorship, there has been ongoing debate over the future role and purpose of the GSEs in the United States housing market. Congress may legislate, or the administration may implement through administrative reform, structural and other changes to the GSEs and the functioning of the secondary mortgage market. Since 2011, there have been numerous legislative proposals intended to incrementally scale back the GSEs (such as a statutory mandate for the GSEs to transfer mortgage credit risk to the private sector) or to completely reform the United States housing finance system. Congress, however, has not enacted any legislation to date. The proposals vary as to the government’s role in the housing market, and more specifically, with regard to the existence of an explicit or implicit government guarantee.

In the absence of legislation, the FHFA continues to move forward on administrative reform efforts to prepare the GSEs for the end of conservatorship, once fully and adequately capitalized. Between FHFA and the United States Treasury Department (the “Treasury Department”), they possess significant capacity to effect administrative GSE reforms.

Today, the FHFA and the GSEs are focused on increasing the accessibility and affordability of homeownership, in particular for low- and moderate-income borrowers and underserved minority communities. Among other things, FHFA (i) directed the GSEs to submit Equitable Housing Plans to identify and address barriers to sustainable housing opportunities, including the GSEs' goals and action plans to advance equity in housing finance for the next three years; (ii) lifted the 50 bps adverse market fee applicable to most refinance loans; (iii) directed the GSEs to expand their streamlined refinance programs; and (iv) directed the GSEs to make permanent desktop appraisals by incorporating the practice into their Selling Guides, which originally was a temporary practice implemented in light of COVID-19. The FHFA announced the release of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s respective Equitable Housing Finance Plans in 2022. The proposals included many initiatives, including language discussing potential changes that could impact the mortgage insurance industry. These initiatives remain preliminary, and we will continue to work with the FHFA, the GSEs, and the broader housing finance industry as these proposals develop and to the extent they are implemented. We cannot predict whether or when any new practices or programs will be implemented under the GSEs’ Equitable Housing Finance Plans or other affordability initiatives, and if so in what form, nor can we predict what effect, if any, such practices or programs may have on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

As part of the process to potentially end the conservatorships of the GSEs, on December 17, 2020, the FHFA promulgated a final rule imposing a new capital framework on the GSEs, including risk-based and leverage capital requirements and capital buffers in excess of regulatory minimums that can be drawn down in periods of financial stress (the “Enterprise Capital Framework”). The Enterprise Capital Framework became effective on February 16, 2021. However, the GSEs will not be subject to any requirement under the Enterprise Capital Framework until the applicable compliance date. Compliance with the Enterprise Capital Framework, other than the requirements to maintain a prescribed capital conservation buffer amount (“PCCBA”) and a prescribed leverage buffer amount (“PLBA”), is required on the later of (i) the date of termination of the conservatorship of a GSE and (ii) any later compliance date provided in a consent order or other transition order applicable to such GSE. FHFA contemplates that the compliance dates for the PCCBA and the PLBA will be the date of termination of the conservatorship of a GSE. The Enterprise Capital Framework’s advanced approaches requirements will be delayed until the later of (i) January 1, 2025 and (ii) any later compliance date provided by a transition order applicable to such GSE. The Enterprise Capital Framework significantly increases capital requirements and reduces capital credit on CRT transactions as compared to the previous framework. This final rule could accelerate the recent diversification of the GSE’s risk transfer programs to encompass a broader array of instruments beyond private mortgage insurance, which could adversely impact our business. Also, in preparation for the end of the FHFA’s conservatorship of the GSEs, the FHFA promulgated a final rule on May 4, 2021, effective July 6, 2021, that requires the GSEs to develop plans that would facilitate their

On January 14, 2021, the FHFA and the Treasury Department agreed to amend the PSPAs between the Treasury Department and each of the GSEs to increase the amount of capital each GSE may retain. Among other things, the amendments to the PSPAs limit the number of certain mortgages the GSEs may acquire with two or more prescribed risk factors, including certain mortgages with combined loan-to-value LTV ratios above 90%. However, on September 14, 2021, the FHFA and Treasury Department suspended certain provisions of the amendments to the PSPAs, including the limit on the number of mortgages with two or more risk factors that the GSEs may acquire. Such suspensions end six months after the Treasury Department notifies the GSEs of termination. The limit on the number of mortgages with two or more risk factors was based on the market size at the time. While we do not expect any material impact to the private mortgage market, changes in the provisions or enforcement of this rule could impact our results.

The adoption of any GSE reform, whether through legislation or administrative action, could impact the current role of private mortgage insurance as credit enhancement, including its reduction or elimination, which would have an adverse effect on our business, revenue, results of operations and financial condition. At present, it is uncertain what role private capital, including mortgage insurance, will play in the United States residential housing finance system in the future or the impact any changes to that system could have on our business. Any changes to the charters or statutory authorities of the GSEs would require congressional action to implement. Passage and timing of any comprehensive GSE reform or incremental change (legislative or administrative) is uncertain, making the actual impact on us and our industry difficult to predict. Any such changes that come to pass could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In recent years, the FHFA has set goals for the GSEs to transfer significant portions of the GSEs’ mortgage credit risk to the private sector; however, under the FHFA’s new leadership, the timing of these goals could change. This mandate builds upon the goals set in each of the last five years for the GSEs to increase the role of private capital by experimenting with different forms of transactions and structures. We have participated in these CRT programs developed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on a limited basis. The GSEs have in the past piloted and may in the future attempt to launch alternative products or transactions that compete with private mortgage insurance. To the extent these credit risk products evolve in a manner that displaces primary mortgage insurance coverage, the amount of insurance we write may be reduced. It is difficult to predict the impact of alternative CRT products that are developed to meet the goals established by the FHFA. In addition, the Enterprise Capital Framework that was promulgated on December 17, 2020 may impact the CRT programs developed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and/or the role of private mortgage insurance as credit enhancement by potentially accelerating the recent diversification of the GSE’s risk transfer programs to encompass a broader array of instruments, beyond private mortgage insurance.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also possess substantial market power, which enables them to influence our business and the mortgage insurance industry in general. Although we actively monitor and develop our relationships with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a deterioration in any of these relationships, or the loss of business or opportunities for new business, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

There are a variety of alternatives to private mortgage insurance that may reduce the amount of mortgage insurance we write. These alternatives include:

The degree to which lenders or borrowers may select these alternatives now, or in the future, is difficult to predict. The performance and resiliency of the private mortgage insurance industry could impact the perception of the industry and private mortgage insurance execution as the primary choice of first-loss credit protection, which could influence the popularity of alternative forms of mortgage insurance in the future. As one or more of the alternatives described above, or new alternatives that enter the market, are chosen over private mortgage insurance, our revenues could be adversely impacted. The loss of business in general or the specific loss of more profitable business could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our largest customer accounted for approximately 18% of our total NIW in 2022 and our top five customers generated approximately 30% of our NIW in 2022. Additionally, no customer had earned premiums that accounted for more than 10% of our total revenues for 2022. Changes in our ability to attract and retain a diverse customer base and avoid undue concentration by geographic region or customer may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Also, customer concentration may adversely affect our financial condition if a significant customer chooses to increase its use of other mortgage insurers, merges with a competitor or exits the mortgage

We cannot be certain that any loss of business from significant customers, or any single customer, would be replaced by business from other customers, existing or new. As a result of market conditions or changed regulatory requirements, our lending customers may decide to write business only with a limited number of mortgage insurers or only with certain mortgage insurers, based on their views with respect to an insurer’s pricing, service levels, underwriting guidelines, loss mitigation practices, financial strength, ratings, mechanisms of credit enhancements or other factors, including our customers’ perceptions of the strength of our Parent and its other subsidiaries. See “—We could be affected by issues affecting our Parent in a way that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and prospects.”

We have developed risk management programs that include risk appetite, limits, identification, quantification, governance, policies and procedures and seek to appropriately identify, monitor, measure, control, mitigate and report the types of risks to which we are subject. We regularly review our risk management programs and work to update them on an ongoing basis to be consistent with then current best market practices. However, our risk management programs may not fully control or mitigate all the risks we face or anticipate all potential material negative events.

Many of our methods for managing certain financial risks (e.g., credit, market and insurance risks) are based on observed historical market behaviors and/or historical, statistically based models. Historical measures may not accurately predict future exposures, which could be significantly greater than historical measures have indicated. We have also established internal risk limits based upon these historical, statistically based models and we monitor compliance with these limits. Our internal risk limits may be insufficient, and our monitoring may not detect all violations (inadvertent or otherwise) of these limits. Other risk management methods are based on our evaluation of information regarding markets, customers and customer behavior, macroeconomic and environmental conditions, catastrophic occurrences and potential changing paradigms that are publicly available or otherwise accessible to us. See “Business—Risk Management.” This collective information may not always be accurate, complete, up to date or properly considered, interpreted or evaluated in our analyses. Moreover, the models and other parts of our risk management programs we rely on in managing various aspects of our business may prove to be less predictive than we expect. See “—If the models used in our business are inaccurate or there are differences and/or variability in loss development compared to our model estimates and actuarial assumptions, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.” The limitations of our models and other parts of our risk management programs may be material and could lead us to make wrong or sub-optimal decisions in managing our risk and other aspects of our business, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Management of operational, legal, franchise and regulatory risks requires, among other things, methods to appropriately identify all such key risks, systems to record incidents and policies and procedures designed to mitigate, detect, record and address all such risks and occurrences. Management of technology risks requires methods to ensure our systems, processes and people are maintaining the confidentiality, availability and integrity of our information, ensuring technology is enabling our overall strategy and our ability to comply with applicable laws and regulations. If our risk management framework does not effectively identify, measure and control our risks, we could suffer unexpected losses or be

We employ various strategies, including CRT transactions, which include traditional reinsurance and the issuance of ILNs, to mitigate financial risks inherent in our business and operations. Such transactions may not always be available to us, but when they are, they subject us to counterparty credit risk. The execution of these strategies also introduces operational risks and considerations. Developing effective strategies for dealing with these risks is a complex process, and no strategy can fully insulate us from those financial risks. See “—CRT transactions may not be available, affordable or adequate to protect us against losses.”

We may choose to retain certain levels of financial and/or non-financial risk, even when it is possible to mitigate these risks. The decision to retain certain levels of financial risk is predicated on our belief that the expected future returns that we will realize from retaining the risk, in relation to the level of risk retained, is favorable, but our expectations may be incorrect, and we may incur material losses or suffer other adverse consequences that arise from the retained risk.

Our performance is highly dependent on our ability to manage risks that arise from day-to-day business activities, including underwriting, claims processing, administration and servicing, execution of our investment strategy, actuarial estimates and calculations, financial and tax reporting and other activities, many of which are very complex. We seek to monitor and control our exposure to risks arising out of or related to these activities through a variety of internal controls, management review processes and other mechanisms. However, the occurrence of unforeseen events, such as COVID-19, or the occurrence of events of a greater magnitude than expected, including those arising from inadequate or ineffective controls, a failure in processes, procedures or systems implemented by us or a failure on the part of employees upon which we rely, may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, a failure from a third-party vendor providing agreed upon products or services to the specifications required, may pose a risk to our business.

Past or future misconduct by our employees or employees of our vendors or suppliers could result in violations of laws by us, regulatory sanctions against us and/or serious reputational, legal or financial harm to our business, and the precautions we employ to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. Although we employ controls and procedures designed to monitor the business decisions and activities of these individuals to prevent us from engaging in inappropriate activities, excessive risk taking, fraud or security breaches, these individuals may undertake these activities or risks regardless of our controls and procedures and such controls and procedures may fail to detect all such decisions and activities. Our compensation policies and procedures are reviewed by us as part of our overall risk management program, but it is possible that such compensation policies and practices could inadvertently incentivize excessive or inappropriate risk taking. If these individuals take excessive or inappropriate risks, those risks could harm our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

As part of our loss mitigation efforts, we periodically investigate insured loans and evaluate the related servicing to ensure compliance with applicable guidelines and to detect possible fraud or misrepresentation. As a result, we have rescinded, and may in the future rescind, coverage on loans that do not meet our guidelines. In the past, we recognized significant benefits from taking action on these investigations and evaluations under our master policies. However, the PMIERs rescission relief principles, which have been incorporated into our mortgage insurance policies since 2014, limit our rescission rights for underwriting defects, misrepresentation, and in other circumstances, such as in cases where the borrower makes a certain number of timely mortgage payments. Therefore, we may not recognize the same level of future benefits from rescission actions as we have in years prior to 2014, potentially resulting in higher losses than under our older master policies. In addition, our rescission rights

Rising interest rates generally reduce the volume of new mortgage originations and refinances. A decline in the volume of new or refinance mortgage originations would have an adverse effect on our NIW, which may in turn decrease our earned premiums. While the terms of recent vintages of adjustable-rate mortgages (“ARMs”) have changed to limit the frequency and severity of payment shocks, rising interest rates also can increase the monthly mortgage payments for homeowners with insured loans that have ARMs that could have the effect of increasing default rates on ARM loans. Higher interest rates can lead to an increase in defaults as borrowers at risk of default will find it harder to qualify for a replacement loan. The significant increases in mortgage rates during 2022, driven by monetary and fiscal policies designed at combating continued inflationary pressures, caused a decline in the mortgage insurance market, which reduced our NIW for the year. This has effectively eliminated the refinance market and affordability pressures from both higher rates and recent home price appreciation have strained the purchase market as well. This impact is offset by higher persistency on our existing insured loans since the prevailing market interest rate is above the loan interest rate of substantially all of our portfolio. We expect this trend to continue into 2023 as rates remain elevated, but the ultimate impact on our premium and future NIW is difficult to predict.

Declining interest rates historically increase the rate at which borrowers refinance their existing mortgages, thereby resulting in cancellations of the mortgage insurance covering existing loans. Declining interest rates can contribute to home price appreciation, which may provide borrowers with the option of cancelling mortgage insurance coverage earlier than we anticipate when we price that coverage. In addition, during 2020 and 2021, as a result of the low interest rate environment, our business experienced a decline in primary persistency rates. Lower primary persistency rates result in reduced IIF and earned premiums, which could have a significant adverse impact on our results of operations.

In addition, interest rate fluctuations could also have an adverse effect on the results of our investment portfolio. In the current period of rising market interest rates, the market value of our lower yielding instruments has declined, driving substantial unrealized losses in our portfolio. While we intend to hold these securities until maturity so as to realize their book value, pressure to sell securities in an unrealized loss position could drive realized losses and impact future earnings. This impact is partially offset by higher yields on new securities purchased. During periods of declining market interest rates, the interest we receive on variable interest rate investments decreases. In addition, during those periods, we reinvest the cash we receive as interest or return of principal on our investments in lower-yielding high-grade instruments or in lower-credit investment grade instruments to maintain comparable returns. Issuers of fixed-income securities may also decide to prepay their obligations in order to borrow at lower market rates, which exacerbates the risk that we have to invest the cash proceeds of these securities in lower-yielding or lower-credit investment grade instruments. See “Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” for additional information about interest rate risk.

We may require incremental capital to support our growth and to meet regulatory or GSE capital requirements, to comply with rating agency criteria to maintain ratings, to repay our debt and to operate and meet unexpected cash flow obligations. If we need additional capital in the future, we may not be able to fund or raise the required capital as and when required and the amount of capital required may be higher than anticipated. Our inability to fund or raise the capital required in the anticipated timeframes and on the anticipated terms, could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition, including causing us to reduce our business levels or be subject to a variety of regulatory actions.

As of December 31, 2022, we met the PMIERs financial and operational requirements. As of December 31, 2022, we had estimated available assets of $5,206 million against $3,156 million net required assets under PMIERs compared to available assets of $5,077 million against $3,074 million net required assets as of December 31, 2021. The sufficiency ratio as of December 31, 2022 was 165% or $2,050 million above the published PMIERs requirements, compared to 165% or $2,003 million above the published PMIERs requirements as of December 31, 2021. For information with respect to higher PMIERs sufficiency ratios in future periods as a result of the GSE Restrictions, see “— If we are unable to continue to meet the requirements mandated by PMIERs, the GSE Restrictions and any additional restrictions imposed on us by the GSEs, we may not be eligible to write new insurance on loans acquired by the GSEs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.” During 2020 and 2021, the GSEs issued several amendments to PMIERs including extension of reduced capital factors for COVID-19 non-performing loans. In order to continue to provide a prudent level of financial flexibility in connection with the current PMIERs capital requirements, and given the dynamic nature of asset and liability valuations, requirement changes over time and recent conditions and restrictions imposed on us by the GSEs, we may be required to execute future capital transactions, including additional CRT transactions and other transactions with third parties to provide additional capital.

However, the implementation of any further CRT transactions or other transactions with third parties to provide additional capital depends on a number of factors, including but not limited to: market conditions, necessary third-party approvals (including approval by regulators and the GSEs) and other factors that are outside of our control. Therefore, we cannot be sure we will be able to successfully implement these actions on the timetable and terms acceptable to us or at all or achieve the anticipated benefits. We also cannot be sure we will be able to meet any additional capital requirements imposed by regulators or the GSEs. See “—CRT transactions may not be available, affordable or adequate to protect us against losses” and “—If we are unable to continue to meet the requirements mandated by PMIERs, the GSE Restrictions and any additional restrictions imposed on us by the GSEs, we may not be eligible to write new insurance on loans acquired by the GSEs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.”

In order to preserve certain tax benefits it obtains from consolidation, our Parent is expected to hold at least 80% of our common stock. Thus, our ability to raise additional capital by issuing stock to third parties will be limited. See “—Our Parent's continued ownership of at least 80% of our common stock may limit our ability to raise additional capital by issuing common stock to third parties.”

As part of our overall risk and capital management strategy, we use CRT transactions. These transactions enable our mortgage insurance business to transfer risks in exchange for some of the associated economic benefits and, as a result, improve our PMIERs and other regulatory RTC measurements and manage risk to within our anticipated tolerance level. See “Business—Credit Risk Transfer.”

The availability and cost of CRT transactions may be impacted by conditions beyond our control, such as general market conditions, changes in regulation, higher rates of unemployment or a significant negative impact on the United States housing market. For example, CRT transactions were more costly to obtain following the economic downturn caused by COVID-19 and ILN pricing remains elevated. In the future, we may be unable to obtain new transactions on acceptable terms or at all. Absent the availability and affordability to enter into new CRT transactions, our ability to obtain PMIERs or statutory credit for new transactions could be adversely impacted or could require us to make capital contributions to maintain regulatory capital requirements. See “—If we are unable to continue to meet the requirements mandated by PMIERs, the GSE Restrictions and any additional restrictions imposed on us by the GSEs, we may not be eligible to write new insurance on loans acquired by the GSEs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.”

Additionally, many of the CRT transactions we execute expose us to credit risk in the event of default of our counterparties or a change in collateral value. For instance, traditional reinsurance does not relieve us of our direct liability to our policyholders, even when the reinsurer is liable to us. Accordingly, we bear credit risk with respect to our reinsurers. We cannot be sure that our reinsurers will pay amounts owed to us now or in the future or that they will pay these amounts on a timely basis. A reinsurer’s insolvency, inability or unwillingness to make payments under the terms of its reinsurance agreement with us could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. Collateral is often posted by the counterparty to offset this risk; however, we bear the risk that the collateral declines in value or otherwise is inadequate to fully compensate us in the event of a default.

Financial strength ratings, which various rating agencies publish as measures of an insurance company’s ability to meet obligations, are important to maintaining public confidence in our mortgage insurance coverage and our competitive position. In assigning financial strength ratings, we believe the rating agencies consider several factors, including but not limited to, the adequacy of the mortgage insurer’s capital to withstand high claim scenarios, a mortgage insurer’s historical and projected operating performance, a mortgage insurer’s enterprise risk management framework, parent company financial strength, business outlook, competitive position, management and corporate strategy. The rating agency issuing the financial strength rating can withdraw or change its rating at any time.

Under PMIERs, the GSEs require maintenance of at least one rating with a rating agency acceptable to the respective GSEs. The current PMIERs do not include a specific ratings requirement with respect to eligibility, but if this were to change in the future, we may become subject to a ratings requirement in order to retain our eligibility status under PMIERs. Ratings downgrades that result in our inability to insure new mortgage loans sold to the GSEs, or the transfer by the GSEs of our existing policies to an alternative mortgage insurer, would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our financial strength ratings are relatively consistent with our competitors. However, any assigned financial strength rating that is below our peers, a downgrade in our financial strength ratings, or the announcement of a potential downgrade could hinder our competitiveness in the marketplace and could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition in many ways, including: (i) increasing scrutiny of us and our financial condition by the GSEs and/or our customers, potentially resulting in a decrease in the amount of our NIW or, in the most severe case, the cessation of writing new business altogether, or limiting the business opportunities we are presented with and (ii) requiring us to reduce the premiums that we charge for mortgage insurance or introduce new products and services in order to remain competitive. Further, our relationships with our customers may be adversely affected by the ratings assigned to our Parent or its other operating subsidiaries, which may be impacted by factors such as any risk or perceived risk regarding our Parent’s liquidity and its (or its affiliates) ability to meet obligations as they become due, and which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. See “—We could be affected by issues

Further, a rating is based on information furnished by us or obtained by the relevant rating agency from its own sources and is subject to revision, suspension or withdrawal by the rating agency at any time. Rating agencies may review the ratings assigned to us due to developments that are beyond our control and any anticipated positive changes in ratings, may never develop or be realized.

We compete with the FHA and the VA, as well as certain local-and state-level housing finance agencies. Separately, the GSEs compete with us through certain of their risk-sharing insurance programs. Those competitors may establish pricing terms and business practices that may be influenced by motives such as advancing social housing policy or stabilizing the mortgage lending industry. Those motives may not be consistent with maximizing return on capital or other profitability measures. In addition, those governmental enterprises typically do not have the same capital requirements or costs of capital that we and other mortgage insurance companies have and therefore may have financial flexibility in their pricing and capacity that could put us at a competitive disadvantage. In the event that a government-owned enterprise or GSE in one of our markets determines to change prices significantly or alter the terms and conditions of its mortgage insurance or other credit enhancement products in furtherance of social or other goals rather than a profit or risk management motive, we may be unable to compete in that market effectively, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. See “—Changes to the charters or practices of the GSEs, including actions or decisions to decrease or discontinue the use of mortgage insurance, could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.”

Income from our investment portfolio is a source of cash to support our operations and make claims payments. If we or our investment managers improperly structure our investments to meet those future liabilities or we have unexpected losses, including losses resulting from the forced liquidation of investments before their maturity, we may be unable to meet those obligations. Our investments and investment policies are subject to state insurance laws, which results in our portfolio being predominantly limited to highly rated fixed income securities. As interest rates have risen, this has led to a significant increase in unrealized losses in our investment portfolio. While we have the intent and ability to hold those securities until maturity, changing conditions requiring the sale of these investments could adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. See “—Interest rates and changes in rates, including changes in monetary policy to combat inflation, could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.”

We report fixed maturity securities at fair value on our consolidated balance sheets. These securities represent the majority of our total cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and invested assets. Our portfolio of fixed maturity securities consists primarily of investment grade securities. Estimates of fair values for fixed maturity securities are obtained primarily from industry-standard pricing methodologies utilizing market observable inputs. For our less liquid securities, such as our privately placed securities, we utilize independent market data to employ alternative valuation methods commonly used in the financial services industry to estimate fair value. Based on the market observability of the inputs used in estimating the fair value, the pricing level is assigned. Valuations use inputs and assumptions that are not always observable or may require estimation; valuation methods may be complex and may also require estimation, thereby resulting in values that are less certain and may vary significantly from the value at which the investments may be ultimately sold. The methodologies, estimates and assumptions we use in

We may be forced to change our investments or investment policies depending upon regulatory, economic and market conditions and our existing or anticipated financial condition and operating requirements, including the tax position, of our business. As a result, our investment objectives may not be achieved, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We depend on reliable, consistent third-party servicing of the loans that we insure. Among other things, our mortgage insurance policies require insureds and their servicers to timely submit premium and monthly IIF and delinquency reports and to use commercially reasonable efforts to limit and mitigate loss when a loan is delinquent. If a servicer was to experience adverse effects to its business, such servicer could experience delays in its reporting and premium payment requirements. Without reliable, consistent third-party servicing, we may be unable to receive and process payments on insured loans and/or properly recognize and establish reserves on loans when a delinquency exists or occurs but is not reported to us. In addition, if these servicers fail to limit and mitigate losses when appropriate, our losses may unexpectedly increase. The current economic environment may significantly impair the financial condition and liquidity of mortgage servicers who are required to advance principal, interest and tax payments to mortgage investors during borrower mortgage forbearance periods.

In recent years, the number of non-bank mortgage loan servicers has increased as the mortgage lending and mortgage loan servicing industries have come under increasing regulation and scrutiny. Significant, sustained failures by large servicers or other disruptions in the servicing of mortgage loans may damage our reputation, result in a loss of customer business, subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Inadequate staffing levels could lead to disruptions in the servicing of mortgage loans, which in turn may contribute to a rise in delinquencies and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. High delinquency rates could also strain the resources of servicers, reducing their ability to undertake mitigation efforts that would help limit losses.

Furthermore, we have delegated to the GSEs, which have in turn delegated to most of their servicers, the authority to accept modifications, short sales and deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure on loans we insure. Servicers are required to operate under protocols established by the GSEs in accepting these loss mitigation alternatives. We depend on servicers in making these decisions and mitigating our exposure to losses. In some cases, loss mitigation decisions favorable to the GSEs may not be favorable to us and may increase the incidence of paid claims. Inappropriate delegation protocols or failure of servicers to service in accordance with the protocols may increase the magnitude of our losses and have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Our delegation of loss mitigation decisions to the GSEs is subject to cancellation, but exercise of our cancellation rights may have an adverse effect on our relationship with the GSEs and customers.

We enter into agreements with our customers that commit us to insure loans made by them using our pre-established guidelines for delegated underwriting. Delegated underwriting represented 71% and 65% of our total NIW by loan count for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. Once we accept a customer into our delegated underwriting program, we generally insure a loan originated by that customer without validating the accuracy of the data submitted by the customer, investigating the loan file for fraud, or confirming that the customer followed our pre-established guidelines for delegated underwriting. See “Business—Underwriting.” Under this program, a customer could commit us to insure a material number of loans that would fail our pre-established guidelines for delegated underwriting but pass our model and certain gating criteria before we discover the problem and terminate that customer’s delegated underwriting authority. Although coverage on such loans may be rescindable or otherwise limited under the terms of our master policies, the burden of establishing the right to rescind or deny coverage lies with the insurer. To the extent that our customers exceed their delegated underwriting authorities, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

We offer contract underwriting services to certain of our customers, pursuant to which our employees and contractors work directly with the customer to determine whether the data relating to a borrower and a proposed loan contained in a mortgage loan application file complies with the customer’s loan underwriting guidelines or the investor’s loan purchase requirements. In connection with that service, we also compile the application data and submit it to the automated underwriting systems of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which independently analyze the data to determine if the proposed loan complies with their investor requirements.

Under the terms of our contract underwriting agreements, we agree to indemnify the customer against losses incurred if we make material errors in determining whether loans processed by our contract underwriters meet specified underwriting or purchase criteria, subject to contractual limitations on liability. As a result, we assume credit and processing risk in connection with our contract underwriting services. If our reserves for potential claims in connection with our contract underwriting services are inadequate as a result of differences from our estimates and assumptions or other reasons, we may be required to increase our underlying reserves, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We establish premium rates for the duration of a mortgage insurance certificate upon issuance, and we cannot adjust the premiums after a certificate is issued. As a result, we cannot offset the impact of unanticipated claims with premium increases on coverage in-force. Our premium rates vary with the perceived risk of a claim and prepayment on the insured loan and are developed using models based on our long-term historical experience, which takes into account a number of factors including, but not limited to, the LTV ratio, whether the mortgage provides for fixed payments or variable payments, the term of the mortgage, the borrower’s credit history, the borrower’s income and assets, and home price appreciation. See “—If the models used in our business are inaccurate or there are differences and/or variability in loss development compared to our model estimates and actuarial assumptions, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.” In the event the premiums we charge for our mortgage insurance coverage may not adequately compensate us for the risks and costs associated with the coverage, it may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation and financial condition.

We provide mortgage insurance primarily for Low Down Payment Loans. Factors that could lead to a decrease in the volume of Low Down Payment Loan originations include, but are not limited to:

In addition, a significant percentage of the premiums we earn each year are renewal premiums from mortgage insurance coverage written in previous years. We estimate that approximately 90% of our gross premiums earned for the year ended December 31, 2022 were renewal premiums compared to approximately 84% and 85% for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. As a result, the length of time insurance remains in-force is an important determinant of our mortgage insurance revenues. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and many other mortgage investors generally permit a borrower to ask the loan servicer to cancel the borrower’s obligation to pay for mortgage insurance when the principal amount of the mortgage falls below 80% of the home’s value. Furthermore, HOPA provides a right for a borrower, so long as the borrower meets other criteria, to request cancellation of private mortgage insurance from their lender either on the date the LTV ratio of the mortgage is first scheduled to reach 80% of its original value or the date on which the LTV ratio of the mortgage reaches 80% of the original value based on actual payments. Likewise, under HOPA, there is an obligation for lenders to automatically terminate a borrower’s obligation to pay for mortgage insurance coverage once the LTV ratio reaches 78% of the original value. Factors that tend to reduce the length of time our mortgage insurance remains in-force include:

Changes in the methodology by which servicers determine the cancellation dates of mortgage insurance under the Homeowners Protection Act, GSE requirements or otherwise, including as a result of changes in law or regulation, GSE rules or guidance, including changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic or homeowner affordability initiatives, or for any other reason, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our persistency rates on primary mortgage insurance were 80%, 62% and 59% for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively. The low persistency rate in 2020 and 2021 has been largely as a result of the low interest rate environment precipitated by the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The increase in 2022 was primarily a result of the rising rate environment in response to inflationary pressures. A decrease in persistency generally would reduce the amount of our IIF and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. However, higher persistency on certain higher risk products could have a material adverse effect if claims generated by such products remain elevated or increase.

We retain confidential customer information in our computer systems, and we rely on commercial technologies to maintain the security of those systems, including computers or mobile devices. Anyone who can circumvent our security measures and penetrate our computer systems or misuse authorized access could access, view, misappropriate, alter, or delete any information in the systems, including personally identifiable information and proprietary business information. Our employees and vendors use portable computers or mobile devices that may contain similar information to that in our computer systems, and these devices have been and can be lost, stolen or damaged, and therefore subject to the same risks as our other computer systems. In addition, an increasing number of states require that affected parties be notified or other actions be taken (which could involve significant costs to us) if a security breach results in the inappropriate disclosure of personally identifiable information. We have experienced occasional, actual or attempted breaches of our cybersecurity, although to date none of these breaches has had a material effect on our business, operations or reputation. Any compromise of the security of our computer systems or those of our customers and third-party service providers that results in inappropriate disclosure of personally identifiable customer information could damage our reputation in the marketplace, deter lenders from purchasing our mortgage insurance, subject us to significant civil and criminal liability and require us to incur significant technical, legal and other expenses.

Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with our privacy policies, our privacy-related obligations to consumers or other third parties, or our privacy-related legal obligations, or any compromise of security that results in the unauthorized release or transfer of sensitive information, which could include personally identifiable information or other user data, may result in governmental investigations, enforcement actions, regulatory fines, litigation and public statements against us by consumer advocacy groups or others, and could cause our customers to lose trust in us, all of which could be costly and have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Regulatory agencies or business partners may institute more stringent data protection requirements or certifications than those

Our insurance operations are subject to a wide variety of laws and regulations and are extensively regulated. State insurance laws regulate most aspects of our business, and our insurance subsidiaries are regulated by the insurance departments of the states in which they are domiciled and licensed. Failure to comply with applicable regulations or to obtain or maintain appropriate authorizations or exemptions under any applicable laws could result in restrictions on our ability to conduct business or engage in activities regulated in one or more jurisdictions in which we operate and could subject us to fines, injunctions and other sanctions that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the nature and extent of regulation could materially change, which may result in additional costs associated with compliance with any such changes, or changes to our operations that may be necessary to comply, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business. See “—Inability to maintain sufficient regulatory capital could result in restrictions or prohibitions on our doing business or impact our financial strength ratings which could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.” and “—Risks Relating to Our Business—If we are unable to continue to meet the requirements mandated by PMIERs, the GSE Restrictions and any additional restrictions imposed on us by the GSEs, we may not be eligible to write new insurance on loans acquired by the GSEs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.”

State insurance regulatory authorities have broad administrative powers, which at times are coordinated and communicated across regulatory bodies. These administrative powers include, but are not limited to:

State insurance regulators and the NAIC regularly re-examine existing laws and regulations, which may lead to modifications to SAP, interpretations of existing laws and the development of new laws and

We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations or other actions in the ordinary course of operating our business, which may result in financial losses, injunctions, or harm to our reputation.

Mortgage insurers have been involved in litigation alleging violations of Section 8 of RESPA or related state anti-inducement laws and the notice provisions of the FCRA. Among other things, Section 8 of RESPA generally precludes mortgage insurers from paying referral fees to mortgage lenders for the referral of mortgage insurance business. This limitation also can prohibit providing services or products to mortgage lenders free of charge, charging fees for services that are lower than their reasonable or fair market value, and paying fees for services that mortgage lenders provide that are higher than their reasonable or fair market value, in exchange for the referral of mortgage insurance business. Various regulators, including the CFPB, state insurance commissioners and state attorneys general may bring actions seeking various forms of relief in connection with alleged violations of the referral fee limitations of RESPA, as well as by private litigants in class actions. The insurance law provisions of many states also prohibit or restrict paying for the referral of insurance business and provide various mechanisms to enforce this prohibition.

In addition, the use by the private mortgage insurance industry of risk-based pricing systems that establish premium rates based on more attributes than previously considered may result in increased state and/or federal scrutiny of premium rates. The increased use of algorithms, artificial intelligence and data and analytics in the mortgage insurance industry may also lead to additional regulatory scrutiny related to other matters such as discrimination in pricing and underwriting, data privacy and access to insurance.

A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. It is possible that we could become subject to future investigations, regulatory actions, lawsuits, or enforcement actions, which could cause us to incur legal costs and, if we were found to have violated any laws or regulations, require us to pay fines and damages, result in injunctions and incur other sanctions, perhaps in material amounts. Increased regulatory scrutiny and any resulting investigations or legal proceedings could result in new legal precedents and industry-wide regulations or practices that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer significant reputational harm and incur significant legal expenses, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We cannot predict the ultimate outcomes of any future investigations, regulatory actions or legal proceedings.

We are required by certain states and other regulators to maintain certain RTC ratios. In addition, PMIERs include financial requirements for mortgage insurers to do business with the GSEs under which a mortgage insurer’s “Available Assets” (generally only the most liquid assets of an insurer) must meet or exceed “Minimum Required Assets” (which are based on an insurer’s RIF and are calculated from tables of factors with several risk dimensions and are subject to a floor amount). The failure of our insurance subsidiaries to meet their regulatory requirements, and additionally the current PMIERs financial requirements on our principal operating subsidiary, could limit our ability to write new business.

If we fail to maintain the required minimum capital level in a state where we write business, we would generally be required to immediately stop writing new business in the state until we re-establish the required level of capital or receive a waiver of the requirement from the state’s insurance regulator, or until we have established an alternative source of underwriting capacity acceptable to the regulator. As of

The NAIC established the MGIWG to determine and make recommendations to the NAIC’s Financial Condition Committee as to what, if any, changes to make to the solvency and other regulations relating to mortgage guaranty insurers. The MGIWG continues to work on revisions to the MGI Model and revisions to Statement of Statutory Accounting Principles No. 58—Mortgage Guaranty Insurance. It also implemented a mortgage guaranty supplemental filing in 2021. In September 2022, the MGIWG released a revised exposure draft of the revised MGI Model. The proposed amendments of the MGI Model are expected to be finalized by the MGIWC in the Spring of 2023. The MGIWC has also worked towards developing a mortgage guaranty capital model. We cannot predict the outcome of this work, whether any state will adopt the amended MGI Model or any of its specific provisions, the effect changes, if any, will have on the mortgage guaranty insurance market generally, or on our business specifically, the additional costs associated with compliance with any such changes, or any changes to our operations that may be necessary to comply, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We also cannot predict whether other regulatory initiatives will be adopted or what impact, if any, such initiatives, if adopted as laws, may have on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Further, the financial strength ratings of our insurance subsidiaries are significantly influenced by their statutory surplus amounts, statutory contingency reserve amounts and capital adequacy ratios. The statutory capital adequacy ratio is known as the RTC ratio, of which the numerator consists of RIF and the denominator consists of the sum of (i) statutory surplus and (ii) the statutory contingency reserve. In any particular year, statutory surplus amounts, statutory contingency reserve amounts, and the RTC ratio may increase or decrease depending on a variety of factors, most of which are outside of our control, including, but not limited to, the following:

An adverse change in our RTC ratio or our ability to meet other minimum regulatory requirements could cause rating agencies to downgrade our financial strength ratings, which could have an adverse

These regulations are principally designed for the protection of policyholders rather than for the benefit of investors. Any proposed or future legislation or NAIC initiatives, if adopted, may be more restrictive on our ability to conduct business than current regulatory requirements or may result in higher costs or increased statutory capital and reserve requirements. Further, because laws and regulations can be complex and sometimes inexact, there is also a risk that any particular regulator’s or enforcement authority’s interpretation of a legal, accounting or reserving issue may change over time to our detriment or expose us to different or additional regulatory risks. The application of these regulations and guidelines by insurers involves interpretations and judgments that may differ from those of state insurance departments. We cannot provide assurance that such differences of opinion will not result in regulatory, tax or other challenges to the actions we have taken to date. The result of those potential challenges could require us to increase levels of statutory capital and reserves or incur higher operating costs and/or have implications on certain tax positions.

In addition to the general regulatory risks that are described under “—Our business is extensively regulated and changes in regulation may reduce our profitability and limit our growth,” we are also affected by various additional regulations relating particularly to our mortgage insurance operations.

Federal and state regulations affect the scope of our competitors’ operations, which influences the size of the mortgage insurance market and the intensity of the competition. This competition includes not only other private mortgage insurers, but also federal and state governmental and quasi-governmental agencies, principally the FHA and the VA, which are governed by federal regulations. Increases in the maximum loan amount that the FHA can insure, and reductions in the mortgage insurance premiums the FHA charges, including a potential 25 basis point reduction, can reduce the demand for private mortgage insurance. Decreases in the maximum loan amounts the GSEs will purchase or guarantee, increases in GSE fees or decreases in the maximum LTV ratio for loans the GSEs will purchase can also reduce demand for private mortgage insurance. See “—Changes to the charters or practices of the GSEs, including actions or decisions to decrease or discontinue the use of mortgage insurance, could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.” Legislative, regulatory and administrative changes could cause demand for private mortgage insurance to decrease.

Additionally, on December 17, 2020, the FHFA promulgated the Enterprise Capital Framework, which imposes a new capital framework on the GSEs, including risk-based and leverage capital requirement and capital buffers in excess of regulatory minimums that can be drawn down in periods of financial distress. The Enterprise Capital Framework became effective on February 16, 2021. However, the GSEs will not be subject to any requirement under the Enterprise Capital Framework until the applicable compliance date. Compliance with the Enterprise Capital Framework, other than the requirements to maintain a PCCBA and a PLBA, is required on the later of (i) the date of termination of the conservatorship of a GSE and (ii) any later compliance date provided in a consent order or other transition order applicable to such GSE. FHFA contemplates that the compliance dates for the PCCBA and the PLBA will be the date of termination of the conservatorship of a GSE. The Enterprise Capital Framework’s advanced approaches requirements will be delayed until the later of (i) January 1, 2025 and (ii) any later compliance date provided by a transition order applicable to such GSE. The Enterprise Capital Framework significantly increases capital requirements and reduces capital credit on CRT transactions as compared to the previous framework. The final rule could cause the GSEs to increase their guarantee pricing in order to meet the new capital requirements. If the GSEs increase their guarantee pricing in order to meet the higher capital requirements, that increase could have a negative

As a credit enhancement provider in the residential mortgage lending industry, we are also subject to compliance with or otherwise impacted by various federal and state consumer protection and insurance laws, including RESPA, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (the “Fair Housing Act”), HOPA, the FCRA and others. Among other things, these laws: (i) prohibit payments for referrals of settlement service business, providing services to lenders for no or reduced fees or payments for services not actually performed; (ii) require cancellation of insurance and refund of unearned premiums under certain circumstances; and (iii) govern the circumstances under which companies may obtain and use consumer credit information. Changes in these laws or regulations, changes in the appropriate regulator’s interpretation of these laws or regulations or heightened enforcement activity could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires an originator or issuer to retain a specified percentage of the credit risk exposure on securitized mortgages that do not meet the definition of a QRM.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, in 2015 the Federal Banking Agencies, the FHFA, the SEC and HUD adopted a joint final rule implementing the QRM rules that aligns the definition of a QRM with that of a QM. In December 2019, the Federal Banking Agencies initiated a review of certain provisions of the risk retention rule, including the QRM definition. Among other things, the review allows the Federal Banking Agencies to consider the QRM definition in light of any changes to the QM definition under the QM Rule adopted by the CFPB, which would include the final rule promulgated by the CFPB on December 29, 2020. If the QRM definition is changed in a manner that is unfavorable to us, such as to require a large down payment for a loan to qualify as a QRM, without giving consideration to mortgage insurance in computing LTV ratios, the attractiveness of originating and securitizing loans with lower down payments may be reduced, which may adversely affect the future demand for mortgage insurance.

In addition, if international banking standards set forth by the Basel Committee are implemented in the United States, without modification by the Federal Banking Agencies (as defined below), the rules could discourage the use of mortgage insurance in the United States.

In 1988, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”), developed the Basel Capital Accord (“Basel I”), which sets out international benchmarks for assessing banks’ capital adequacy requirements. In 2005, the Basel Committee issued an update to Basel I (“Basel II”), which, among other things, sets forth capital treatment of mortgage insurance purchased and held on balance sheet by banks in respect of their origination and securitization activities. Following the financial crisis of 2008, the Basel Committee made further revisions to improve the quality and quantity of capital banking organizations hold through Basel III. The Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) (collectively, the “Federal Banking Agencies”) implemented Basel III through the adoption of revisions to their regulatory capital rules (the “Basel III Rules”), which establish minimum RBC and leverage capital requirements for most United States banking organizations (although banking organizations with less than $10 billion in total assets may now choose

If further revisions to the Basel III Rules increase the capital requirements of banking organizations with respect to the residential mortgages we insure or do not provide sufficiently favorable treatment for the use of mortgage insurance purchased in respect of a bank’s origination and securitization activities, it could adversely affect the demand for mortgage insurance. In December 2017, the Basel Committee published final revisions to the Basel III capital framework (the “2017 Basel III Revisions”) that were generally targeted for implementation by each participating country by January 1, 2023. Under these revisions to the international framework, banks using the standardized approach to determine their credit risk may consider mortgage insurance in calculating the exposure amount for real estate but will determine the risk-weight for residential mortgages based on the LTV ratio at loan origination, without consideration of mortgage insurance. Under the standardized approach, after the appropriate risk-weight is determined, the existence of mortgage insurance could be considered, but only if the company issuing the insurance has a lower risk-weight than the underlying exposure. Mortgage insurance issued by private companies would not meet this test. Therefore, under the 2017 Basel III Revisions, mortgage insurance could not mitigate credit and lower the capital charge under the standardized approach. It is possible that the Federal Banking Agencies could determine that their current capital rules are at least as stringent as the 2017 Basel III Revisions, in which case no change would be mandated. However, if the Federal Banking Agencies decide to implement the 2017 Basel III Revisions as specifically drafted by the Basel Committee, mortgage insurance would not lower the LTV ratio of residential loans for capital purposes, and therefore may decrease the demand for mortgage insurance.

Further, it is possible (but not mandated by the 2017 Basel III Revisions) that the Federal Banking Agencies and the GSEs might likewise discontinue taking mortgage insurance into account when determining a mortgage’s LTV ratio for prudential (non-capital) purposes.

Our Parent continues to beneficially own at least 80% of our common stock. As a result, our Parent controls all matters requiring a stockholder vote, including: the election of directors; mergers, consolidations and acquisitions; the sale of all or substantially all of our assets and other decisions affecting our capital structure; the amendment of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws; and our winding up and dissolution. This concentration of ownership may delay, deter or prevent acts that would be favored by our other stockholders. The interests of our Parent may not always coincide with our interests or the interests of our other stockholders. This concentration of ownership may also have the effect of delaying, preventing or deterring a change in control of us. Our Parent’s high ownership percentage risk may also impact our stock price as price volatility may be greater if the public float and trading volume of shares of our common stock are low.

Also, our Parent may seek to cause us to take courses of action that, in its judgment, could enhance its investment in us, but which might involve risks to our other stockholders or adversely affect us or our other stockholders. However, any dividends or other capital transactions must be approved by our Independent Capital Committee, which is composed entirely of independent directors. We also have entered into a registration rights agreement with our Parent, which will give our Parent a right, subject to certain conditions, to require us to register the sale of our common stock beneficially owned by our Parent.

So long as our Parent continues to beneficially own more than 50% of our outstanding common stock, our Parent will have certain rights, including the right to nominate the majority of our directors. Certain of these directors may also be officers or employees of our Parent or certain of our Parent’s other subsidiaries. Because of their current or former positions with our Parent or certain of our Parent’s other subsidiaries, these directors, as well as a number of our officers, own substantial amounts of our Parent’s

In addition, we have entered into agreements with our Parent and its subsidiaries that provide a framework for our ongoing relationship, including a Master Agreement, a registration rights agreement, a Shared Services Agreement, an intellectual property cross license agreement and a transitional trademark license agreement. Disagreements regarding the rights and obligations of our Parent or certain of our Parent’s other subsidiaries or us under each of these agreements or any renegotiation of their terms could create conflicts of interest for certain of these directors and officers, as well as actual disputes that may be resolved in a manner unfavorable to us and our other stockholders. Interruptions to or problems with services provided under the Shared Services Agreement could result in conflicts between us and our Parent or certain of our Parent’s other subsidiaries that increase our costs both for the processing of business and the potential remediation of disputes. Although we believe these agreements contain commercially reasonable terms, the terms of these agreements may later prove not to be in the best interests of our future stockholders or may contain terms less favorable than those we could obtain from third parties. In addition, certain of our officers negotiating these agreements may appear to have conflicts of interest as a result of their ownership of our Parent’s common stock and holdings of our Parent’s equity awards.

Our Parent or certain of our Parent’s other subsidiaries currently perform or support many important corporate functions for our operation, including but not limited to, investment management, information technology services and certain administrative services (such as finance, human resources and employee benefit administration). Our Shared Services Agreement with our Parent provides us continued access to certain of these services. We negotiated these arrangements with our Parent or certain of our Parent’s other subsidiaries in the context of a parent-subsidiary relationship. We cannot assure you that these services will be sustained at the same levels or that we would be able to replace such services in a timely manner or on comparable terms.

Specific services provided under the Shared Services Agreement may be terminated by either party for convenience with at least one hundred eighty (180) days’ prior written notice to the other party. If our Parent or certain of our Parent’s other subsidiaries cease to provide services pursuant to the terms of our existing agreements, our costs of procuring services from third parties may increase. As a standalone company, we may be unable to obtain such goods and services at comparable prices or on terms as favorable as those provided by our Parent, either of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. Other agreements with our Parent or certain of our Parent’s other subsidiaries also govern the relationship between us and our Parent or certain of our Parent’s other subsidiaries and provide for the allocation of certain expenses. They also contain terms and provisions that may be more favorable than terms and provisions we might have obtained in arm’s length negotiations with unaffiliated third parties. These operational risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We remain a part of our Parent’s family of businesses. Therefore, our customers, third-party service providers, credit providers and other persons may continue to associate us with our Parent’s reputation

Our Parent continues to pursue its overall strategy with a focus on improving business performance and increasing financial and strategic flexibility across the organization. Our Parent’s strategy includes maximizing its opportunities in its mortgage insurance businesses and stabilizing its United States life insurance businesses. While our Parent has been successful in reducing its financial leverage, it cannot be sure it will be able to successfully execute on its strategic plans to effectively address its current business challenges, including as a result of:

We also rely on our Parent and/or certain of our Parent’s subsidiaries to provide certain investment management, information technology services and certain administrative services (such as finance, human resources and employee benefit administration). If our Parent is unable or unwilling to provide such services in the future, we may be unable to provide such services ourselves or we may have to incur additional expenditures to obtain such services from another provider. Additionally, we may be subject to reputational harm if our Parent or any of its affiliates, previously, or in the future, among other things, becomes subject to litigation or otherwise damages its reputation or business prospects. Any of these events could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our Parent as of December 31, 2022 had $868 million of long-term borrowings outstanding, excluding the amount held by EHI. Because we are not responsible for our Parent’s indebtedness and we are currently predominately capitalized and funded independently of our Parent, if our Parent is unable to raise sufficient proceeds to satisfy its obligations as they become due, or our Parent were to default on its outstanding indebtedness, or our Parent were to become subject to insolvency or other similar proceedings, we would not expect such events to result directly in an event of default or an insolvency event for us. However, any such event or the risk (or perceived risk) that any such proceedings could involve us, could negatively affect our ratings, our reputation, our business, our liquidity and results of operations, and could therefore have a negative effect on our ability to repay our own indebtedness,

Various tax regulations require the preparation of complex computations, significant judgments and estimates in interpreting their respective provisions. These aspects are inherently difficult to interpret and apply, and the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and other standard-setting bodies could interpret these aspects differently than us. In addition, these departments could issue guidance on how provisions of tax regulations should be applied or administered that could be different from our interpretation. Therefore, even though we believe we have applied tax laws and regulations appropriately in our financial statements it is possible that we have interpreted the rules differently and therefore applied the impacts to our financial results in a way that differs from those of these authoritative bodies. Likewise, changes in tax laws or regulations may be proposed or enacted that could adversely affect our overall tax liability and results of operations or financial condition. Changes in tax laws and regulations that impact our customers and counterparties or the economy may also impact our results of operations and financial condition. There can be no assurance that changes in tax laws or regulations will not materially and/or adversely affect our effective tax rate, tax payments, results of operations and financial condition.

We are subject to regular review and audit by tax authorities as well as subject to the prospective and retrospective effects of changing tax regulations and legislation. The ultimate tax outcome may materially differ from the tax amounts recorded in our consolidated financial statements and may materially affect our income tax provision, net income (loss), cash flows or operations.

On August 16, 2022, the U.S. federal government enacted the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) which, among other things, implements a 15% corporate alternative minimum tax (“CAMT”) based on adjusted financial statement income and imposes a 1% excise tax on corporate stock repurchases. The effective date of these provisions is January 1, 2023. We do not expect the enactment of the CAMT to have a material impact on our financial statements as we do not expect to be an applicable corporation in 2023. The US Treasury Department is expected to issue guidance throughout 2023 that may differ from our interpretations and assumptions and that could alter our determination. Any excise tax incurred on our share repurchases will generally be recognized as part of the cost basis of the treasury stock acquired and will not be reported as part of income tax expense. There was no U.S. federal income tax-related legislation or administrative guidance issued in 2021 that had a significant impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

We currently join in the filing of a United States consolidated income tax return of which our Parent is the common parent (the “Genworth Consolidated Group”) with our other insurance and non-insurance affiliates. As a result, we are jointly and severally liable for the U.S. federal income taxes owed by the group for periods in which we are a member of the group. Accordingly, for any taxable periods for which we are included in the Genworth Consolidated Group for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we could be liable in the event that any income tax liability was incurred but was not discharged by the Parent or any other member of the group. Our Parent, however, will be responsible for any taxes for which we are jointly and severally liable solely by reason of filing a combined, consolidated or unitary return with our Parent under the Tax Allocation Agreement.

We are currently a member of the Genworth Consolidated Group. As a consequence, we will pay our Parent our share of the consolidated income tax liability when we have taxable income or receive benefit for losses we contribute and which are utilized to the Genworth Consolidated Group.

Our Parent and certain of its non-insurance subsidiaries expect to incur material federal income tax deductions in the future, primarily related to interest expense on third-party debt and expenses in respect of stewardship with respect to the enterprise and subsidiary operations. If we were to cease to be a member of the Genworth Consolidated Group, our income could no longer offset tax losses of other members of the Genworth Consolidated Group, and the Genworth Consolidated Group may not have sufficient taxable income from other operations to fully absorb the anticipated tax deductions of our Parent and its non-insurance subsidiaries, reducing the value of such tax deductions to our Parent. Given that our Parent expects to incur federal income tax deductions for the foreseeable future, our Parent may find it beneficial to retain at least 80% ownership of our common stock for the foreseeable future.

As a condition to us remaining a member of the Genworth Consolidated Group, our Parent generally must continue to own an amount of our stock which possesses at least 80% of the total voting power of our stock and has a value equal to at least 80% of the total value of our stock. For these purposes, the term “stock” does not include any stock that (i) is not entitled to vote; (ii) is limited and preferred as to dividends and does not participate in corporate growth to any significant extent; (iii) has redemption and liquidation rights which do not exceed the issue price of such stock (except for a reasonable redemption or liquidation premium) and (iv) is not convertible into another class of stock. Accordingly, while we will have the ability to raise additional capital through certain preferred stock or other means, we will be limited in our ability to raise additional capital by issuing common stock to third parties without leaving our Parent’s consolidated group, which our Parent may not permit. We may also be limited pursuant to restrictions imposed by insurance regulators, GSEs and any limitations under intercompany agreements. This limitation on our ability to raise additional capital through the issuance of common stock could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are currently a member of the Genworth Consolidated Group, and we expect to continue to be a member as long as our Parent continues to own an amount of our stock which possesses at least 80% of the total voting power of our stock, and it has a value equal to at least 80% of the total value of our stock. See “—Our Parent’s continued ownership of at least 80% of our common stock may limit our ability to raise additional capital by issuing common stock to third parties”. Our Parent may cease to own such amount of stock in the future and in that event, we would cease to be a member of the Genworth Consolidated Group.

In the event we were to cease being a member of the Genworth Consolidated Group, we may be required to make a payment to our Parent of $24.3 million for tax benefits related to foreign tax credits for which we received credit under the Tax Allocation Agreement, but which had not been utilized by the Genworth Consolidated Group at such time. These tax benefits would be available to reduce our tax liabilities in periods after we leave the Genworth Consolidated Group, subject to any applicable limitation that may apply with respect to such period or tax benefit. In addition, the tax consequences of any transaction between us and other members of the Genworth Consolidated Group which were deferred under the consolidated return rules would likely be triggered, which could require us to make additional payments under the Tax Allocation Agreement.

In addition, in the event we were to cease being a member of the Genworth Consolidated Group, we and our Parent would be subject to the application of the “unified loss rules,” which may require us to pay more income tax in the future. Subject to certain exceptions, if our Parent has higher tax basis in our

At this time, we do not expect that the unified loss rules would cause a material reduction in the tax basis of our assets if we were to depart the Genworth Consolidated Group. The application of the unified loss rules is complex, however, and will depend upon a number of factual determinations that must be made at the time of such departure. Accordingly, no guarantee can be given that we would not be required to pay more income tax as a result of the application of the unified loss rules upon a deconsolidation. Such increased tax obligations could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are a holding company with limited direct business operations. Our primary subsidiaries are insurance companies that own a large majority of our assets and conduct substantially all of our operations. Dividends from our subsidiaries and permitted payments to us under arrangements with our subsidiaries are our principal sources of cash to meet our obligations. These obligations include operating expenses and interest and principal on current and any future borrowings. Our subsidiaries may not be able to, or may not be permitted by regulators to, pay dividends or make distributions to enable us to meet our obligations. Each subsidiary is a distinct legal entity and legal and contractual restrictions may also limit our ability to obtain cash from our subsidiaries. If the cash we receive from our subsidiaries pursuant to dividends and other arrangements is insufficient to fund any of these obligations, or if a subsidiary is unable or unwilling to pay future dividends or distributions to us to meet our obligations, we may be required to raise cash through, among other things, incurring debt (including convertible or exchangeable debt), selling assets or issuing equity.

The payment of dividends and other distributions by our insurance subsidiaries is dependent on, among other things, their financial condition and operating performance, corporate law restrictions, insurance laws and regulations and maintaining adequate capital to meet the requirements mandated by PMIERs, including the GSE Restrictions. In general, dividends and distributions are required to be submitted to an insurer’s domiciliary department of insurance for review. In addition, insurance regulators may prohibit the payment of dividends and distributions, or other payments by the insurance subsidiaries (such as a payment under an agreement or for employee or other services, including expense reimbursements) if they determine that such payment could be adverse to policyholders. Courts typically grant regulators significant deference when considering challenges of an insurance company to a determination by insurance regulators to grant or withhold approvals with respect to dividends and other distributions. Accordingly, there can be no assurances that insurance regulators will approve payment of a dividend or distribution or other transfers of assets to us by our insurance subsidiaries.

Our liquidity and capital position are highly dependent on the performance of our subsidiaries and their ability to pay future dividends and distributions to us as anticipated. The evaluation of future dividend sources and our overall liquidity plans are subject to current and future market conditions, the regulatory landscape and business performance.

The design and effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting may not prevent all errors, misstatements or misrepresentations. While management

From time to time, we may become subject to various legal and regulatory proceedings related to our business. Litigation and regulatory proceedings may result in financial losses and harm our reputation. We face the risk of litigation and regulatory proceedings or other actions in the ordinary course of operating our business, including class action lawsuits. We are also subject to litigation arising out of our general business activities such as our contractual and employment relationships. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and regulatory proceedings, we cannot determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of any such litigation or proceedings. A substantial legal liability or injunction or a significant regulatory action against us could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory proceeding or other action, we could suffer significant reputational harm and incur significant legal expenses and such litigation may divert management’s attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our financial statements are subject to the application of U.S. GAAP, which is periodically revised. Accordingly, from time to time, we are required to adopt new or revised accounting standards issued by recognized authoritative bodies, including the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”). We are also subject to reporting requirements from the SEC. It is possible that future accounting and reporting standards we are required to adopt could change the current accounting treatment that we apply to our financial statements, including impacting the calculation of net earnings, stockholders’ equity and other relevant financial statement line items. The impact of changes in accounting and reporting standards, particularly those that apply to insurance companies, cannot be predicted, but such changes could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Such changes may also cause additional volatility in reported earnings, decrease the understandability of our financial results and affect the comparability of our reported results with the results of others. In addition, we may be unable to implement new accounting guidance or other proposals by the adoption date which would materially adversely impact our business. Furthermore, the required adoption of future accounting and reporting standards could require us to make significant changes to systems and use additional resources, which may result in significant costs.

Our success is largely dependent on our ability to attract, on-board, retain and motivate qualified employees and senior management. We face intense competition in our industry and local job market for key employees with demonstrated ability, including actuarial, finance, legal, investment, risk, compliance, information technology and other professionals. We also face natural or man-made disasters or pandemics that could at times impact our ability to on-board new hires. See “—The occurrence of natural or man-made disasters or public health emergencies, including pandemics and disasters caused or exacerbated by climate change, could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.” Furthermore, as the future of work evolves and work arrangements such as a remote

Managing key employee succession and retention is also critical to our success. We would be adversely affected if we fail to plan adequately for the succession of our senior management and other key employees. While we have succession plans and long-term compensation plans, including retention programs, designed to retain our employees, our succession plans may not operate effectively, and our compensation plans cannot guarantee that the services of these employees will continue to be available to us.

We rely on third-party vendors to efficiently execute in-house processes as well as to provide unique or cost-efficient products or services. We rely on the controls and risk management processes of these third parties. While we have certain contractual protections and perform third-party vendor due diligence procedures, there is no assurance that third-party vendors will provide accurate and complete information to us, meet their obligations on a timely basis and adhere to the provisions of our agreements. Additionally, if a third-party vendor is unable to source and maintain a capable work force or supply Enact with contractors during times of peak volume, then we may be unable to satisfy our customer requirements. In addition, some third-party vendors may provide unique services and the loss of those services may be difficult to replace. Any of the above scenarios could lead to reputational damage and a financial impact.

Our business is highly dependent upon the effective operation of our computer systems. We also have arrangements in place with our partners and other third-party service providers through which we share and receive information, including the submission of new mortgage insurance applications. We also rely on these systems throughout our business for a variety of functions, including processing claims, providing information to customers, performing actuarial analyses and maintaining financial records. Despite the implementation of security controls and back-up measures, our computer systems and those of our partners and third-party service providers have been and may be in the future vulnerable to system failures, physical or electronic intrusions, computer malware or other attacks, programming errors and similar disruptive problems. The failure of these systems for any reason could cause significant interruptions to our operations, which could result in a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Technology continues to expand and plays an ever-increasing role in our business. While it is our goal to safeguard information assets from physical theft and cybersecurity threats, there can be no assurance that our information security will detect and protect information assets from these ever-increasing risks. Information assets include both information itself in the form of computer data, written materials, knowledge and supporting processes, and the information technology systems, networks, other electronic devices and storage media used to store, process, retrieve and transmit that information. As more information is used and shared by our employees, customers and suppliers, both within and outside our company, cybersecurity threats become expansive in nature. Confidentiality, integrity and availability of information are essential to maintaining our reputation, legal position and ability to conduct our operations. Although we have implemented controls and continue to train our employees, a cybersecurity

We rely on technologies to provide services to our customers. Customers require us to provide and service our mortgage insurance products in a secure manner, either electronically through our internet website or through direct electronic data transmissions. Accordingly, we invest resources in establishing and maintaining electronic connectivity with customers and, more generally, in technological advancements. In addition, if our information technology systems are inferior to our competitors’, existing and potential customers may choose our competitors’ products over ours. Our business would be negatively impacted if we are unable to enhance our platform when necessary to support our primary business functions, including to match or exceed the technological capabilities of our competitors. We cannot predict with certainty the cost of maintaining and improving our platform, but failure to make necessary improvements and any significant shortfall in any technology enhancements or negative variance in the timeline in which system enhancements are delivered could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, a natural or man-made disaster or a pandemic could disrupt public and private infrastructure, including our information technology systems. See “—The occurrence of natural or man-made disasters or public health emergencies, including pandemics and disasters caused or exacerbated by climate change, could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.” Unanticipated problems with, or failures of, our disaster recovery systems and business continuity plans could have a material adverse impact on our ability to conduct business and on our results of operations and financial condition. Furthermore, if a significant number of our employees were unavailable in the event of a disaster or a pandemic, our ability to effectively conduct business could be severely compromised. The failure of our disaster recovery systems and business continuity plans could adversely impact our profitability and our business.

Natural or man-made disasters or pandemics or public health emergencies could also disrupt the operations of our counterparties and third-party suppliers or result in increased prices for the products and services they provide to us, which could lead to increased reinsurance rates, less favorable terms and conditions and reduced availability of reinsurance. This may cause us to retain more risk than we otherwise would retain and could negatively affect our compliance with the financial requirements of the PMIERs. 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 FEMA has declared major disaster areas. For example, in response to COVID-19, the GSEs made temporary revisions to PMIERs in the PMIERs Amendment, providing relief on the risk-based required asset amount factor for certain non-performing loans impacted by a COVID-19 hardship. See “—If we are unable to continue to meet the requirements mandated by PMIERs, the GSE Restrictions and any additional restrictions imposed on us by the GSEs, we may not be eligible to write new insurance on loans acquired by the GSEs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.” An increase in delinquency notices resulting from a natural or man-made disaster or a pandemic/public health emergency may result in an increase in “Minimum Required Assets” and a decrease in the level of our excess “Available Assets” that is discussed in our risk factor titled “—Risks Relating to Regulatory Matters—Inability to maintain sufficient regulatory capital could result in restrictions or prohibitions on our doing business or impact our financial strength ratings which could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.”

State laws, PMIERs and provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws may delay, deter, prevent, or render more difficult a takeover attempt that our stockholders might consider in their best interests. For example, such laws or provisions may prevent our stockholders from receiving the benefit from any premium to the market price of our common stock offered by a bidder in a takeover context. Even in the absence of a takeover attempt, the existence of these provisions may adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common stock if they are viewed as discouraging takeover attempts in the future.

The insurance laws and regulations of the various states in which our insurance subsidiaries are organized may delay or impede a business combination involving our company. State insurance laws prohibit an entity from acquiring control of an insurance company without the prior approval of the domestic insurance regulator. Under most states’ statutes, an entity is presumed to have control of an insurance company if it owns, directly or indirectly, 10% or more of the voting stock of that insurance company or its parent company. In addition, PMIERs may delay or impede a business combination or change of control involving our company. PMIERs requires us to obtain the prior written approval of the GSEs before we permit a material change in, or acquisition of, control or beneficial ownership of our company or make changes to our corporate or legal structure. These restrictions may delay, deter, or prevent a potential merger or sale of our company, even if our board of directors decides that it is in the best interests of stockholders for us to merge or be sold. These restrictions also may delay sales by us or acquisitions by third parties of our insurance subsidiaries.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws include provisions that may have anti-takeover effects, such as prohibiting stockholders from calling special meetings of our stockholders

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware shall be the sole and exclusive forum for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a duty (including any fiduciary duty) owed by any of our current or former directors, officers, stockholders, employees or agents to us or our stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim against us or any of our current or former directors, officers, stockholders, employees or agents arising out of or relating to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) or our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our amended and restated bylaws (each, as in effect from time to time), or (iv) any action asserting a claim against us or any of our current or former directors, officers, stockholders, employees or agents governed by the internal affairs doctrine of the State of Delaware; provided, however, that, in the event that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any such action or proceeding, the sole and exclusive forum for such action or proceeding shall be another state or federal court located within the State of Delaware, in each such case, unless the Court of Chancery (or such other state or federal court located within the State of Delaware, as applicable) has dismissed a prior action by the same plaintiff asserting the same claims because such court lacked personal jurisdiction over an indispensable party named as a defendant therein. Unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States of America shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). This exclusive forum provision does not preclude or contract the scope of exclusive federal or concurrent jurisdiction for any actions brought under the Securities Act. This exclusive forum provision does not apply to actions arising under the Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). Our exclusive forum provision does not relieve us of our duties to comply with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder, and our stockholders are not deemed to have waived our compliance with these laws, rules and regulations.

Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring or holding any interest in any of our securities shall be deemed to have notice of and consented to this provision. This exclusive-forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum of its choosing for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and other employees. If a court were to find the exclusive-forum provision in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving the dispute in other jurisdictions, which could harm our results of operations.

In 2022, we announced the initiation of a quarterly dividend for our common shareholders as well as a Stock Repurchase Plan that allows for repurchases of our common stock. Our ability to return capital to our shareholders is dependent on our business results and the macroeconomic environment and may be materially and adversely affected by the risk factors discussed herein. Although we anticipate continuing to pay quarterly dividends to our shareholders, future dividend payments and share repurchase authorizations are subject to review and approval by our Board of Directors after considering, among other factors, economic and regulatory constraints, current risks to the Company, and subsidiary performance. In addition, future dividend payments or other means of returning capital to our shareholders are also subject to approval by the Parent, compliance with the terms of our debt agreements and applicable laws and regulations. Our ability to repurchase stock may also be restricted

As a result, no assurance can be given that we will be able to continue to pay dividends to our shareholders, repurchase our common stock, or return capital through other means, in the future or that the level of any future dividends or other return of capital will achieve a market yield or increase or even be maintained over time, any of which could materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

None.

We are currently leasing our headquarters in Raleigh, North Carolina, which consists of approximately 130,000 square feet. The lease is set to expire on December 31, 2027. Additionally, we lease a second office in Washington, D.C. consisting of approximately 2,022 square feet. That lease is set to expire in April 2026. We believe our current facilities are adequate for our current needs and that suitable additional or alternative space will be available as and when needed.

We are not subject to any pending material legal proceedings.

Not applicable.

Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol “ACT.” As of February 24, 2023, we had 7 registered holders of record of our common stock.

The table below sets forth information regarding repurchases of our common shares during the three months ended December 31, 2022:

Subsequent to year end, the Company purchased 253,689 shares at an average price of $24.13 through January 31, 2023.

The graph below compares the cumulative total stockholder return of an investment in (i) our common shares, (ii) the Russell 2000 Index, (iii) the S&P 500 and (iv) a composite peer group consisting of Essent Group Ltd., MGIC Investment Corporation, NMI Holdings, Inc., and Radian Group Inc, for the period from September 16, 2021 (the date our common shares commenced trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market) through December 31, 2022. We selected the members of this peer group because each is a competitor of ours in the private mortgage insurance industry. For the December 2022 Annual Report, we removed Arch Capital Group Ltd. from our peer listing due to the more differentiated nature of their business and outsized market capitalization in relation to the remainder of the peer list.

During the first quarter of 2022, we announced that our Board of Directors has approved the initiation of a dividend program under which the Company intends to pay a quarterly cash dividend. The inaugural quarterly dividend of $0.14 per share was paid in the second quarter of 2022, followed by payments of regular dividends of $0.14 per share in the third and fourth quarters of 2022 as well. In the fourth quarter of 2022, we also paid a special cash dividend of $1.12 per share. See “Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” for additional information on dividends.

The following discussion and analysis of our consolidated financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020 included in Item 8 of this Annual Report. This discussion includes forward-looking statements and involves numerous risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from management’s expectations. For factors that could cause such differences refer to the sections entitled “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors.” We are not undertaking any obligation to update any forward-looking statements or other statements we may make in the following discussion or elsewhere in this document even though these statements may be affected by events or circumstances

We are a leading private mortgage insurance company, having served the United States housing finance market since 1981, and operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Our mortgage insurance products provide credit protection to mortgage lenders, covering a portion of the unpaid principal balance of Low Down Payment Loans in the event of a default. We believe we have built a leading platform based on long-tenured customer relationships, underwriting excellence and prudent risk and capital management practices. Our business objective is to leverage our competitive strengths to drive market share, maintain our strong capitalization and strong earnings profile and deliver attractive risk-adjusted returns to our stockholders.

We generate revenues by providing mortgage credit protection to our customers in exchange for premiums, which we set based on our evaluation of the underlying risk we insure. Once the premium rate is established and coverage is activated, the premium rate remains unchanged for the first ten years of the policy; thereafter the premium rate resets to a lower rate used for the remaining life of the policy. In general, we can only cancel coverage for a failure to pay premiums or at servicer direction when the borrowers achieve the required amount of home equity. Our premium rate is applied predominantly to the original loan balance to determine either a monthly payment that the lender adds to the borrower’s monthly loan payment or a single upfront payment made by either the borrower or lender at loan closing. The amount of premiums earned from our insurance portfolio and the timing of premium recognition are also affected by persistency rate, which we measure as the percentage of loans that remain on our books based on the annualized cancellations for the period.

We also employ a CRT program to transfer a portion of our risk through both traditional XOL reinsurance arrangements and the issuance of ILNs. In exchange, we cede a negotiated amount of our premiums to the reinsurers and ILN investors that participate in our CRT transactions. Our net premiums earned (i.e., materially, the gross premiums charged less premiums ceded as part of our CRT program) represent the largest source of our revenues. Importantly, our CRT program helps to de-risk our operating model and spread the risk of loss across our counterparties while also providing capital relief.

We also invest our premiums in high quality, predominantly fixed income assets with the primary business objectives of preserving capital, generating investment income and maintaining sufficient liquidity to cover our operating expenses and pay future claims. The investment income generated through our investment portfolio is another significant source of our revenues.

We generate profits through collection of premiums and investment income less losses, operating expenses, interest expense and taxes. Our mortgage insurance coverage protects lenders against loss in the event of a borrower default by covering a portion of the outstanding principal balance of a loan. In the event of a borrower default, our coverage reduces and, in certain instances eliminates, losses to the insured by transferring the covered portion of the economic loss to us. Borrower defaults are first reported to us as new delinquencies when the borrower fails to make two consecutive monthly mortgage payments. Incurred losses are our estimate of future claims on these new delinquencies as well as any change in the prior estimates for previously existing delinquencies. In addition, incurred losses include estimates of future claims on IBNR delinquencies. Our incurred losses are based on estimates of both the rate at which delinquencies will go to claim (i.e., claim rate) and the ultimate claim amount (i.e., claim severity). Claim frequency and severity estimates are established based on historical experience focusing on certain delinquency and loan attributes that influence the probability and amount of ultimate claim. Our estimates of ultimate claim amounts for each delinquency include loss adjustment expense (“LAE”) that are costs incurred in the settlement of the claim process such as legal fees and costs to record, process and adjust claims. Incurred losses are generally affected by macroeconomic conditions, borrower credit

Our financial position and results of operations depend to a significant extent on the following factors, as noted below in “—Trends and Conditions.”

The level of mortgage origination volume is a key driver of our future revenues. The overall mortgage origination market is influenced by macroeconomic factors such as the rate of economic growth, the unemployment rate, interest rates, home affordability, household savings rates, the inventory of unsold homes, demographics of potential homebuyers and credit availability. The mortgage origination market is also influenced by various legislative and regulatory actions and GSE programs and policies that impact the housing and mortgage finance industries.

The penetration rate of private mortgage insurance is mainly influenced by the competitiveness of private mortgage insurance compared to alternative products for Low Down Payment Loans provided by government agencies (principally the FHA and the VA), portfolio lenders that self-insure, reinsurers and capital market transactions designed to mitigate risk. In addition, the private mortgage insurance industry’s penetration rate is driven by the relative percentage of purchase mortgage originations versus refinances. Private mortgage insurance penetration tends to be significantly higher on new mortgages for purchased homes than on the refinance of existing mortgages, because average LTV ratios are typically higher on home purchases and therefore are more likely to require mortgage insurance. Lastly, we believe the penetration rate of private mortgage insurance is influenced by other factors, including lender preference, FHA competitiveness and risk appetite, loan limits, contractual terms including cancellability and loss mitigation practices.

The level of private mortgage insurance market penetration (“market penetration”) and eventual market size is affected in part by actions taken by the GSEs and the United States government, including the FHA, the FHFA and Congress, that impact housing or housing finance policy. In the past, these actions have included announced changes, or potential changes, to underwriting standards, FHA pricing, GSE guaranty fees and loan limits, as well as low down payment programs available through the FHA or GSEs.

Competitors include other private mortgage insurers that are eligible to write business for the GSEs. We compete with other private mortgage insurers based on pricing, underwriting guidelines, customer relationships, service levels, policy terms, loss mitigation practices, perceived financial strength (including comparative credit ratings), reputation, strength of management, product features and technology ease-of-use. We also compete with governmental agencies (principally the FHA and the VA) primarily based on price and underwriting guidelines.

Pricing is highly competitive in the mortgage insurance industry, with industry participants competing for market share, customer relationships and overall value. Recent pricing trends have introduced an increasing number of loan, borrower, lender and property attributes, resulting in expanded granularity in pricing regimes and a shift from traditional published rate cards to dynamic pricing engines that better align price and risk. Our proprietary risk-based pricing engine evaluates returns and volatility under both the PMIERs capital framework and our internal economic capital framework, which is sensitive to economic cycles and current housing market conditions. The model assesses the performance of new

Consistent with the seasonality of home sales, purchase mortgage origination volumes typically increase in late spring and peak during summer months, leading to a rise in NIW volume during the second and third quarters of a given year. Refinancing volume, however, does not follow a similar seasonal trend and instead is primarily influenced by interest rates, which can overwhelm typical seasonal trends. Delinquency performance (new delinquency formation and cure behavior) is generally favorable in the first and second quarters of the year. Therefore, we typically experience lower levels of losses resulting from favorable delinquency activity in the first and second quarters, as typically compared to the third and fourth quarters. As a result of delinquencies from COVID-19 and subsequent cure activity, trends from the last two years may not follow traditional seasonality.

The following table presents our NIW, number of cures and new delinquencies for primary policies, excluding our run-off insurance block with reference properties in Mexico, for the periods indicated:

NIW occurs when a lender activates mortgage insurance coverage on a closed mortgage loan. NIW increases our IIF, premiums written and premiums earned. NIW is affected by the overall size of the mortgage origination market, the penetration rate of private mortgage insurance into the overall mortgage origination market and our market share of the private mortgage insurance market.

Our pricing strategy is designed to charge premium rates commensurate with the underlying risk of each loan we insure. Our proprietary platform provides us with a more flexible, granular and analytical approach to selecting and pricing risk. Using our platform, we can quickly change price to modify our risk selection levels, respond to industry pricing trends or adjust to changing economic conditions. We believe that our platform, powered by our proprietary risk model and our understanding of mortgage risk volatility, provides us with a highly sophisticated pricing regime that improves our risk selection and is designed to yield attractive risk adjusted returns through credit cycles.

IIF at the time of origination is used to determine premiums as the premium rate is expressed as a percentage of IIF. IIF is one of the primary drivers of our future earned premium. Based on the composition of our insurance portfolio, with monthly premium policies comprising a larger proportion of our total portfolio than single premium policies, an increase or decrease in IIF generally has a corresponding impact on premiums earned. Cancellations of our insurance policies as a result of prepayments and other reductions of IIF, such as rescissions of coverage and claims paid, generally have a negative effect on premiums earned.

The percentage of our IIF that remains insured after taking into account annualized cancellations for the period presented is defined as our persistency rate. Because our insurance premiums are earned over the life of a policy, higher or lower persistency rates can have a significant impact on our profitability. The rise of interest rates throughout 2022 has significantly increased persistency in the portfolio, but this impact is partially offset by lower NIW.

Loan prepayment speeds and the relative mix of business between single premium policies and monthly premium policies also impact our profitability. Assuming all other factors remain constant over the life of the policies, prepayment speeds have an inverse impact on IIF and the expected premium from our monthly policies. Slower prepayment speeds, demonstrated by a higher persistency rate, result in IIF remaining in place, providing increased premium from monthly policies over time as premium payments continue. Earlier than anticipated prepayments, demonstrated by a lower persistency rate, reduce IIF and the premium from our monthly policies.

The following table presents the weighted average mortgage interest rate on outstanding primary IIF as of December 31, 2022, excluding our run-off business. Prepayment speeds may be affected by changes in interest rates, among other factors. An increasing interest rate environment generally will reduce refinancing activity and result in lower prepayments. A declining interest rate environment generally will increase refinancing activity and increase prepayments.

In contrast to monthly premium policies, when single premium policies are cancelled by the insured because the loan has been paid off or otherwise, any remaining unearned premiums are earned at cancellation. Although these cancellations reduce IIF, assuming all other factors remain constant, the profitability of our single premium business increases when persistency rates are lower. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, single premium policies comprised 12% and 13% of primary IIF, respectively.

Improved analytics, stronger loan origination quality controls and the regulatory implementation of the QM Rule have resulted in a significant improvement in the credit quality for loans originated in the private mortgage insurance market over time. Additionally, private mortgage insurers and the GSEs have maintained strong credit standards over the past decade, with average FICO scores for NIW persisting at levels significantly above historical averages. As a result, the industry is insuring loans from borrowers who should be better positioned to meet their mortgage obligations. More recently, in response to FTHB

Net investment income is determined primarily by the invested assets held and the average yield on our overall investment portfolio.

The recognition of realized investment gains or losses can vary significantly across periods as the activity is highly discretionary based on such factors as market opportunities, our capital profile and overall market cycles that impact the timing of selling securities.

Losses incurred represent current payments and changes in the estimated future payments on claims that result from delinquent loans. We estimate an expense only for delinquent loans as explained in Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements. Incurred losses depend to a significant extent on the following factors:

We use CRT transactions to transfer a portion of our risk to third parties, through both traditional XOL reinsurance and the issuance of ILNs. Our CRT program reduces the volatility of our in-force portfolio and provides capital relief under PMIERs. When we enter into a CRT transaction, the reinsurer receives a premium and, in exchange, insures an agreed upon portion of incurred losses. These arrangements have the impact of reducing our earned premiums but also provide capital relief under PMIERs in exchange for a negotiated ceded premium rate. Under certain stress scenarios, our incurred losses are also reduced by any incurred losses ceded in accordance with our reinsurance agreements.

Our operating expenses include costs related to the acquisition and ongoing maintenance of our insurance contracts, including sales, underwriting and general operating costs. Acquisition expenses are influenced by the amount of our NIW. Acquisition costs that are related directly to the successful acquisition of new insurance policies, such as underwriting expenses, are deferred and amortized over the life of the underlying insurance policies. These deferred acquisition costs are referred to as “DAC.” The ongoing maintenance expenses of our insurance contracts are generally fixed in nature and include costs such as information technology, finance and legal, among others, including costs allocated from our Parent for certain activities on our behalf. See Note 11 to our consolidated financial statements regarding our related party transactions.

The accounting estimates (including sensitivities) discussed in this section are those that we consider to be particularly critical to an understanding of our consolidated financial statements because their application places the most significant demands on our ability to judge the effect of inherently uncertain matters on our financial results. The sensitivities included in this section involve matters that are also inherently uncertain and involve the exercise of significant judgment in selecting the factors and amounts used in the sensitivities. Small changes in the amounts used in the sensitivities or the use of different factors could result in materially different outcomes from those reflected in the sensitivities. For all of these accounting estimates, we caution that future events seldom develop as estimated and management’s best estimates often require adjustment.

Loss reserves represents the amount needed to provide for the estimated ultimate cost of settling claims relating to insured events that have occurred on or before the end of the respective reporting period. The estimated liability includes requirements for future payments of: (a) losses that have been reported to the insurer; (b) losses related to insured events that have occurred but that have not been reported to the insurer as of the date the liability is estimated; and (c) LAE. Loss adjustment expenses include costs incurred in the claim settlement process such as legal fees and costs to record, process and adjust claims. Consistent with U.S. GAAP and industry accounting practices, we do not establish loss reserves for future claims on insured loans that are not in default or believed to be in default.

Estimates and actuarial assumptions used for establishing loss reserves involve the exercise of significant judgment, and changes in assumptions or deviations of actual experience from assumptions can have material impacts on our loss reserves and net income (loss). Because these assumptions relate to factors that are not known in advance, change over time, are difficult to accurately predict and are inherently uncertain, we cannot determine with precision the ultimate amounts we will pay for actual claims or the timing of those payments. The sources of uncertainty affecting the estimates are numerous and include factors internal and external to us. Internal factors include, but are not limited to, changes in the mix of exposures, loss mitigation activities and claim settlement practices. Significant external influences include changes in home prices, unemployment, government housing policies, state foreclosure timeline, general economic conditions, interest rates, tax policy, credit availability and mortgage products. Small changes in assumptions or small deviations of actual experience from

We establish reserves to recognize the estimated liability for losses and LAE related to defaults on insured mortgage loans. Loss reserves are established by estimating the number of loans in our inventory of delinquent loans that will result in a claim payment, which is referred to as the claim rate, and further estimating the amount of the claim payment, which is referred to as claim severity. The estimates are determined using a factor-based approach, in which assumptions of claim rates for loans in default and the average amount paid for loans that result in a claim are calculated using traditional actuarial techniques. Over time, as the status of the underlying delinquent loans moves toward foreclosure and the likelihood of the associated claim loss increases, the amount of the loss reserves associated with the potential claims may also increase.

Management monitors actual experience, and where circumstances warrant, will revise its assumptions. Our liability for loss reserves is reviewed regularly, with changes in our estimates of future claims recorded through net income. Estimation of losses is based on historical claim and cure experience and covered exposures and is inherently judgmental. Future developments may result in losses greater or less than the liability for loss reserves provided.

Loss reserves as of December 31, 2022, were $519 million, a decrease of $122 million since December 31, 2021. In considering the potential sensitivity of the factors underlying management’s best estimate of our loss reserve, it is possible that even a relatively small change in the estimated claim and severity rates could have a significant impact on loss reserves and, correspondingly, on results of operations. For example, based on our actual experience during the three-year period immediately preceding December 31, 2022, a change of 6 percentage points, or 15%, in the average claim rate would change the gross loss reserve amount for such quarter by approximately $80 million. Likewise, a change of 6 percentage points, or a change of 5%, in the average severity rate would change the gross loss reserve amount for such quarter by approximately $26 million.

Our portfolio of fixed maturity securities was valued at $4,885 million as of December 31, 2022, a decrease of $382 million from December 31, 2021.

The methodologies, estimates and assumptions used in valuing our fixed maturity securities evolve over time and are subject to different interpretations, all of which can lead to materially different estimates of fair value. Additionally, because the valuation is based on market conditions at a specific point in time, the period-to-period changes in fair value may vary significantly due to changing interest rates, external macroeconomic and credit market conditions. For example, widening credit spreads will generally result in a decrease, while tightening of credit spreads will generally result in an increase, in the fair value of our fixed maturity securities. As well, during periods of increasing interest rates, the market values of lower-yielding assets will decline. See “Item 7A—Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk—Sensitivity Analysis—Interest Rate Risk” for the impact of hypothetical changes in interest rates on our investments portfolio.

Our portfolio of fixed maturity securities comprises primarily investment grade securities, which are carried at fair value. Estimates of fair values for fixed maturity securities are obtained primarily from industry-standard pricing methodologies utilizing market observable inputs. For our less liquid securities, such as our privately placed securities, we utilize independent market data to employ alternative valuation methods commonly used in the financial services industry to estimate fair value. Based on the market observability of the inputs used in estimating the fair value, the pricing level is assigned.

See Notes 2, 3 and 4 to our consolidated financial statements for additional information related to the valuation of fixed maturity securities and a description of the fair value measurement estimates and level assignments.

As of each balance sheet date, we evaluate fixed maturity securities in an unrealized loss position for changes to the allowance for credit losses. Determining the value of the unrealized losses is dependent on the same methodologies and assumptions used in our valuation of fixed maturity securities. We also consider all available information relevant to the collectability of the security, including information about past events, current conditions and reasonable and supportable forecasts, when developing the estimate of cash flows expected to be collected. There is no recorded allowance for credit losses on available-for-sale securities as of December 31, 2022.

See Note 2 and 3 to our consolidated financial statements for additional information related to the allowance for credit losses on fixed maturity securities.

The majority of our insurance contracts have recurring monthly premiums. We recognize recurring premiums over the terms of the related insurance policy on a pro-rata basis. Premiums written on single premium policies and annual premium policies are initially deferred as unearned premium reserve and earned over the policy life. A portion of the revenue from single premium policies is recognized in premiums earned in the current period, and the remaining portion is deferred as unearned premiums and earned over the estimated expiration of risk of the policy. If single premium policies are cancelled and the premium is non-refundable, then the remaining unearned premium related to each cancelled policy is recognized to earned premiums upon notification of the cancellation. For borrower-paid mortgage insurance, coverage ceases at the earlier of prepayment, or when the original principal is amortized to a 78% loan-to-value ratio in accordance with the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998. Variation in cancellation rates and projected losses are inputs into our premium recognition models, causing uncertainty within our estimates.

We periodically review our premium earnings recognition models with any adjustments to the estimates reflected as a cumulative adjustment on a retrospective basis in current period net income. These reviews include the consideration of recent and projected loss and policy cancellation experience, and adjustments to the estimated earnings patterns are made, if warranted.

Unearned premium was $203 million as of December 31, 2022, a decrease of $44 million compared to December 31, 2021. Changes in market conditions could cause a decline in mortgage originations, mortgage insurance penetration rates, persistency and our market share, all of which could impact new insurance written. For example, a decline in primary new insurance written of $1.0 billion would result in a reduction in earned premiums of approximately $3 million in the first full year. Likewise, if primary persistency rates declined on our existing insurance in-force by 10%, earned premiums would decline by approximately $94 million during the first full year, partially offset by higher policy cancellations in our single premium products. These reductions in earned premiums could be potentially offset by lower reserves due to policies no longer being in-force.

During 2022, the United States and global economies experienced continued volatility due to high inflation, geopolitical uncertainty and supply chain disruption. Inflationary pressures lessened in the latter half of 2022 but remain elevated, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting in December that the Consumer Price Index was 6.5% year-over-year. As a result, the Federal Reserve has continued its aggressive approach towards addressing inflation through interest rate increases and a reduction of its balance sheet. The Federal Reserve approved an interest rate increase of 0.25% in February 2023, following increases of 0.50% in December 2022, 0.75% in November, September, July and June 2022, 0.50% in May 2022 and 0.25% in March 2022. Financial markets have reacted with increased volatility and rates have increased across the Treasury yield curve. The Federal Reserve has signaled that it may make additional interest rate increases to address persistent inflationary pressure.

Mortgage origination activity declined during 2022 in response to rising mortgage rates. If interest rates remain high, the refinance market is likely to remain depressed. Housing affordability was challenged in 2022 compared to recent years due to sharply increasing interest rates and elevated home prices, modestly offset by rising median family income according to the National Association of Realtors Housing Affordability Index. Year-over-year home price appreciation slowed through early 2022, and home prices declined during the second half of the year, according to the FHFA Monthly Purchase-Only House Price Index.

The unemployment rate declined to 3.5% in December 2022 compared to 3.9% in December 2021, following a decline from its peak of 14.8% in April 2020, bringing unemployment in line with the pre-COVID-19 level of 3.5% in February 2020. As of December 31, 2022, the number of unemployed Americans stands at approximately 5.7 million and the number of long term unemployed over 26 weeks was approximately 1.1 million. Both metrics remain relatively in line with February 2020 levels.

For mortgages insured by the federal government, including those purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, forbearance allows borrowers impacted by COVID-19 to temporarily suspend mortgage payments up to 18 months subject to certain limits. Currently, the GSEs do not have a deadline for requesting an initial forbearance. Federal laws and regulations continue to require servicers to discuss loss mitigation options with borrowers before proceeding with foreclosures. These requirements could further extend the foreclosure timeline, which could negatively impact the severity of loss on loans that go to claim.

Although it is difficult to predict the future level of reported forbearance and how many of the policies in a forbearance plan that remain current on their monthly mortgage payment will go delinquent, servicer-reported forbearances have generally declined. As of December 31, 2022, approximately 1.5%, or 14,270, of our active primary policies were reported in a forbearance plan. Of these policies in forbearance plans, approximately 36% were reported as delinquent at year end. Natural disasters, such as hurricanes, often lead to temporary increases in delinquencies in forbearance. We experienced a small increase in delinquencies in the fourth quarter of 2022 related to the recent hurricane affecting the southeastern United States, but these did not have a material impact on reserves as of December 31, 2022. We will continue to monitor the affected areas and support the measures enacted by the GSEs allowing forbearance, restricting foreclosure actions and providing other forms of mortgage relief for those dealing with damage.

Total delinquencies decreased during 2022 as a result of cures outpacing new delinquencies. The annual new delinquency rate for 2022 was 3.8%, up slightly from 2021 but in line with historical pre-COVID-19 levels.

The full impact of COVID-19 and its ancillary economic effects on our future business results are difficult to predict. Given the maximum length of forbearance plans, the resolution of a delinquency in a plan still may not be known for several quarters or longer. We continue to monitor regulatory and government actions and the resolution of forbearance delinquencies. While the associated risks have

The FHFA and the GSEs are focused on increasing the accessibility and affordability of homeownership, in particular for low- and moderate-income borrowers and underserved minority communities. In June 2022, the FHFA announced the release of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s respective Equitable Housing Finance Plans. The plans included many initiatives, including language discussing potential changes that could impact the mortgage insurance industry. The plans are in their early stages, and we will continue to work with the FHFA, the GSEs, and the broader housing finance industry as these proposals develop and to the extent they are implemented. We cannot predict whether or when any new practices or programs will be implemented under the GSEs’ Equitable Housing Finance Plans or other affordability initiatives, and if so in what form, nor can we predict what effect, if any, such practices or programs may have on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Private mortgage insurance market penetration and eventual market size are affected in part by actions that impact housing or housing finance policy taken by the GSEs and the U.S. government, including but not limited to, the FHA and the FHFA. In the past, these actions have included announced changes, or potential changes, to underwriting standards, including changes to the GSEs’ automated underwriting systems, FHA pricing, GSE guaranty fees, loan limits and alternative products. On February 25, 2022, the FHFA finalized the rule for the Enterprise Capital Framework, which included technical corrections to its December 17, 2020 rule. Higher GSE capital requirements could lead to increased costs to borrowers of GSE loans, which in turn could shift the market away from the GSEs to the FHA or lender portfolios. Such a shift could potentially result in a smaller market for private mortgage insurance.

In January 2022, the FHFA introduced new upfront fees for some high-balance and second-home loans sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Upfront fees for high balance loans increased between 0.25% and 0.75%, tiered by loan-to-value ratio. For second home loans, the upfront fees increased between 1.125% and 3.875%, also tiered by loan-to-value ratio. The new pricing framework became effective April 1, 2022. To date, we have not experienced a significant impact to the mortgage insurance market or our projections based on this initiative.

In January 2023, the FHFA announced additional updates to its up-front fee structure and a recalibration and reformatting of their entire pricing matrix. The changes marked the third iteration of FHFA’s ongoing pricing review since early last year and impact purchase and rate-term refinance loans. Pricing grids are now broken out by loan purpose and are recalibrated to new credit score and loan-to-value ratio categories along with associated loan attributes. The new pricing matrix also includes new up-front fees for loans with DTI ratios greater than 40%. The changes are effective May 1, 2023. The effects of these changes will ultimately be dependent on any changes made by the FHA, but we do not expect a significant impact to the private mortgage insurance market.

On February 22, 2023, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced a 30-basis point reduction of the annual insurance premium charged to borrowers with FHA-insured mortgages. This action is designed to reduce the cost of borrowing for lower- and middle-class homebuyers who are eligible for the federal program The price reduction is expected to have a negative impact on the private mortgage insurance market, but will be partially offset by the effects of the recent FHFA pricing changes referenced above. We do not believe this net impact will be material.

The U.S. private mortgage insurance industry is highly competitive. Our market share is influenced by the execution of our go to market strategy, including but not limited to, pricing competitiveness relative to our peers and our selective participation in forward commitment transactions. We continue to manage the quality of new business through pricing and our underwriting guidelines, which are modified from time to time when circumstances warrant. We see the market and underwriting conditions, including the pricing environment, as being within our risk-adjusted return appetite enabling us to write new business at attractive returns. Ultimately, we expect our new insurance written with its strong credit profile and attractive pricing to positively contribute to our future profitability and return on equity.

New insurance written of $66.5 billion in 2022 decreased 31% compared to 2021 primarily due to a smaller estimated private mortgage insurance market in the current year as refinance and purchase originations were impacted by rising interest rates.

Our largest customer accounted for 18% and 14% of our total NIW during the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. No customer had earned premiums that accounted for more than 10% of our total revenues for the years ended December 31, 2022 or 2021.

Our primary persistency rate increased to 80% during 2022 compared to 62% during 2021. The persistency rate increased throughout 2022, with a rate in the fourth quarter of 86%. The increase in persistency was primarily driven by a decline in the percentage of our in-force policies with mortgage rates above current mortgage rates as a result of the rising rate environment during 2022. Higher persistency impacted business performance trends in several ways including, but not limited to, slowing the recognition of earned premiums due to single premium policy cancellations, slowing the amortization of our existing reinsurance transactions and reduction of their associated PMIERs capital credit and shifting the concentration of our primary IIF by policy year. As of December 31, 2022, primary IIF had approximately 58% concentration in 2022 and 2021 compared to 71% concentration in 2021 and 2020 as of December 31, 2021. Despite slower NIW production, our IIF grew $21.6 billion, or 10% in 2022, compared to $18.3 billion or 9% in 2021, driven by increased persistency.

Net earned premiums declined in 2022 compared to 2021 primarily as a result of the lapse of older, higher priced policies and a decrease in single premium cancellations. This was partially offset by IIF growth. The total number of delinquent loans has declined from the COVID-19 peak in the second quarter of 2020 as forbearance exits continue and new forbearances declined. During this time and consistent with prior years, servicers continued the practice of remitting premiums during the early stages of default, and we refund the post-delinquent premiums to the insured party if the delinquent loan goes to claim. We record a liability and a reduction to net earned premiums for the post-delinquent premiums we expect to refund. The post-delinquent premium liability recorded since the beginning of COVID-19 in the second quarter of 2020 through the fourth quarter of 2022 was not significant to the change in earned premiums for those periods as a result of the high concentration of new delinquencies being subject to a servicer reported forbearance plan and the lower estimated rate at which delinquencies go to claim for these loans.

Our loss ratio for the year ended December 31, 2022, was (10%) as compared to 13% for the year ended December 31, 2021. The decrease was largely from favorable reserve adjustments in 2022. We released $314 million of reserves on delinquencies from prior years, primarily related to favorable cure performance on COVID-19 delinquencies from 2020 and 2021. During the peak of COVID-19, we experienced elevated new delinquencies subject to forbearance plans. Those delinquencies have continued to cure at levels above our reserve expectations, which led to the release of reserves in 2022.

Our loss reserves continue to be impacted by COVID-19 and remain subject to uncertainty. Borrowers who have experienced a financial hardship including, but not limited to, the loss of income due to the closing of a business or the loss of a job, continue to take advantage of available loss mitigation options including forbearance programs, payment deferral options and other modifications. Loss reserves recorded on these delinquencies have a high degree of estimation due to the level of uncertainty regarding whether delinquencies in forbearance will ultimately cure or result in claim payments as well as the timing and severity of those payments.

The severity of loss on loans that do go to claim may be negatively impacted by the extended forbearance and foreclosure timelines, the associated elevated expenses and the higher loan amount of the recent new delinquencies. These negative influences on loss severity could be mitigated, in part, by embedded home price appreciation. For loans insured on or after October 1, 2014, our mortgage insurance policies limit the number of months of unpaid interest and associated expenses that are included in the mortgage insurance claim amount to a maximum of 36 months.

New delinquencies in 2022 increased compared to 2021. Current period primary delinquencies of 35,996 contributed $171 million of loss expense in 2022. We incurred $144 million of losses from 32,624 current period delinquencies in 2021. In determining the loss expense estimate, considerations were given to forbearance and non-forbearance delinquencies, recent cure and claim experience, and the prevailing and prospective economic conditions. Approximately 21% of our primary new delinquencies in 2022 were subject to a forbearance plan as compared to 42% in 2021.

EMICO’s risk-to-capital ratio under the current regulatory framework as established under North Carolina law and enforced by the NCDOI, EMICO’s domestic insurance regulator, was approximately 12.9:1 as of December 31, 2022 and 12.3:1 as of December 31, 2021. EMICO’s risk-to-capital ratio remains below the NCDOI’s maximum risk-to-capital ratio of 25:1. North Carolina’s calculation of risk-to-capital excludes the risk-in-force for delinquent loans given the established loss reserves against all delinquencies. EMICO’s ongoing risk-to-capital ratio will depend principally on the magnitude of future losses incurred by EMICO, the effectiveness of ongoing loss mitigation activities, new business volume and profitability, the amount of policy lapses and the amount of additional capital that is generated or distributed by the business.

Under PMIERs, we are subject to operational and financial requirements that private mortgage insurers must meet in order to remain eligible to insure loans that are purchased by the GSEs. Since 2020, the GSEs have issued several amendments to PMIERs, which implemented both permanent and temporary revisions.

For loans that became non-performing due to a COVID-19 hardship, PMIERs was temporarily amended with respect to each non-performing loan that (i) had an initial missed monthly payment occurring on or after March 1, 2020, and prior to April 1, 2021, or (ii) is subject to a forbearance plan 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 the GSEs. The risk-based required asset amount factor for the non-performing loan is the greater of (a) the applicable risk-based required asset amount factor for a performing loan were it not delinquent, and (b) the product of a 0.30 multiplier and the applicable risk-based required asset amount factor for a non-performing loan. In the case of (i) above, absent the loan being subject to a forbearance plan described in (ii) above, the 0.30 multiplier was applicable for no longer than three calendar months beginning with the month in which the loan became a non-performing loan due to having missed two monthly payments. Loans subject to a forbearance plan described in (ii) above include those that are either in a repayment plan or loan modification trial period

In September 2020, subsequent to the issuance of our senior notes due in 2025, the GSEs imposed certain restrictions (the “GSE Restrictions”) with respect to capital on our business. In May 2021, in connection with their conditional approval of the then potential partial sale of EHI, the GSEs confirmed the GSE Restrictions will remain in effect until the following collective conditions (“GSE Conditions”) are met for two consecutive quarters: (a) EMICO obtains “BBB+”/“Baa1” (or higher) rating from S&P, Moody’s or Fitch Ratings, Inc. and (b) Genworth achieves certain financial metrics. EHI maintained the requisite ratings for two consecutive quarters prior to the end of 2022. As of December 31, 2022, Genworth believes that they achieved their financial metrics for the quarters ended September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2022. Once confirmed by the GSEs, EHI will no longer be subject to GSE Restrictions and Conditions.

Prior to the satisfaction of the GSE Conditions, the GSE Restrictions require:

Until the GSE Conditions imposed in connection with the GSE Restrictions are met, our liquidity must not fall below 13.5% of its outstanding debt. In addition, Fannie Mae agreed to reconsider the GSE Restrictions if Genworth were to own 50% or less of EHI at any point prior to their expiration. We understand that Genworth’s current plans do not include a potential sale in which Genworth owns less than 80% of EHI. As of December 31, 2022, the balance of the 2025 Senior Notes proceeds required to be held by our holding company was approximately $203 million compared to $453 million of cash and invested assets held at EHI.

As of December 31, 2022, we had estimated available assets of $5,206 million against $3,156 million net required assets under PMIERs compared to available assets of $5,077 million against $3,074 million net required assets as of December 31, 2021. The sufficiency ratio as of December 31, 2022, was 165% or $2,050 million above the published PMIERs requirements, compared to 165% or $2,003 million above the published PMIERs requirements as of December 31, 2021. PMIERs sufficiency is based on the published requirements applicable to private mortgage insurers and does not give effect to the GSE Restrictions imposed on our business. Credit risk transfer transactions provided an aggregate of approximately $1,578 million of PMIERs capital credit as of December 31, 2022, compared to $1,404 million as of December 31, 2021. Our PMIERs required assets as of December 31, 2022, benefited from the application of a 0.30 multiplier applied to the risk-based required asset amount factor for certain non-performing loans. The application of the 0.30 multiplier to all eligible delinquencies provided $132 million of benefit to our December 31, 2022, PMIERs required assets. This amount is gross of any incremental reinsurance benefit from the elimination of the 0.30 multiplier.

On July 21, 2022, Moody’s Investors Service upgraded the insurance financial strength rating of EMICO to Baa1 from Baa2. The increase was driven by improvement in our overall credit profile, including market position, profitability, capital adequacy and financial flexibility. Our continued

On January 27, 2022, we executed an excess of loss reinsurance transaction with a panel of reinsurers, on a portion of current and expected new insurance written for the 2022 book year, effective January 1, 2022. Based on actual 2022 NIW, this agreement provided up to $221 million of reinsurance coverage.

On March 24, 2022, we executed an excess of loss reinsurance transaction with a panel of reinsurers, which provides up to $325 million of reinsurance coverage on a portfolio of existing mortgage insurance policies written from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, effective March 1, 2022.

On September 15, 2022, we executed an excess of loss reinsurance transaction with a panel of reinsurers, which provides up to $201 million of reinsurance coverage on a portfolio of existing mortgage insurance policies written from January 1, 2022, through June 30, 2022, effective September 1, 2022.

On June 30, 2022, we entered into a five-year, unsecured revolving credit facility (the “Facility”) with a syndicate of lenders in the initial aggregate principal amount of $200 million. The Facility may be used for working capital needs and general corporate purposes, including the execution of dividends to our shareholders and capital contributions to our insurance subsidiaries. The Facility remains undrawn as of December 31, 2022.

Returning capital to shareholders, balanced with our growth and risk management priorities, remains a key commitment as we look to drive shareholder value through time. We believe the initiation of a quarterly dividend in 2022 reflects meaningful progress towards that goal. Further, we announced a special cash dividend of $183 million, or $1.12 per share, that was paid during the fourth quarter of 2022. We also announced the initiation of a share repurchase program which authorized the repurchase of up to $75 million of the Company’s common stock. Under the program, share repurchases may be made at the Company’s discretion from time to time in open market transactions, privately negotiated transactions, or by other means, including through Rule 10b5-1 trading plans. In support, we have entered into an agreement with Genworth Holdings, Inc. to repurchase its EHI shares on a pro rata basis as part of the program. The share repurchase program is not expected to change Genworth’s ownership interest in EHI post-completion. We began repurchases in the fourth quarter of 2022 which were immaterial. We expect the timing and amount of any future share repurchases will be opportunistic and will depend on a variety of factors, including EHI’s share price, capital availability, business and market conditions, regulatory requirements, and debt covenant restrictions. The program does not obligate EHI to acquire any amount of common stock, it may be suspended or terminated at any time at the Company’s discretion without prior notice, and it does not have a specified expiration date.

Future return of capital will be shaped by our capital prioritization framework: supporting our existing policyholders, growing our mortgage insurance business, funding attractive new business opportunities and returning capital to shareholders. Our total return of capital will also be based on our view of the prevailing and prospective macroeconomic conditions, regulatory landscape and business performance.

Premiums decreased mainly attributable to lapse of our in-force portfolio as older, higher priced policies lapsed combined with lower single premium cancellations and partially offset by higher IIF.

Net investment income increased primarily due to higher investment yields due to interest rate increases during 2022 coupled with higher average invested assets. This was partially offset by lower income from bond calls.

Net investment losses in the current year were primarily driven by realized losses from the sale of fixed maturity securities. Net investment losses in the prior year were largely from impairments and net realized losses from the sale of fixed maturity securities.

Other income decreased primarily due to lower contract underwriting revenue. Other income includes underwriting fee revenue charged on a per-unit or per-diem basis, as defined in the underwriting agreement. Underwriting volume was down due to a smaller mortgage insurance market.

The following table shows incurred losses related to current and prior accident years for the years ended December 31:

Acquisition and operating expenses, net of deferrals, decreased primarily attributable to lower corporate overhead.

Amortization of DAC and intangibles declined due to lower DAC amortization as a result of higher persistency, driven by rising mortgage rates.

The expense ratio remained flat due to similar percentage declines in premiums and expenses.

Interest expense was relatively flat in the current year and related primarily to our 2025 Senior Notes issued in August 2020. For additional details see Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements.

The effective tax rate was 21.6% and 21.4% for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, consistent with the United States corporate federal income tax rate.

We use a non-U.S. GAAP (“non-GAAP”) financial measure entitled “adjusted operating income.” This non-GAAP financial measure aligns with the way our business performance is evaluated by both management and our Board of Directors. This measure has been established in order to increase transparency for the purposes of evaluating our core operating trends and enabling more meaningful comparisons with our peers. Although “adjusted operating income” is a non-GAAP financial measure, for the reasons discussed above we believe this measure aids in understanding the underlying performance of our operations. Our senior management, including our chief operating decision maker (who is our Chief Executive Officer), use “adjusted operating income” as the primary measure to evaluate the fundamental financial performance of our business and to allocate resources.

“Adjusted operating income” is defined as U.S. GAAP net income excluding the effects of (i) net investment gains (losses) and (ii) restructuring costs and infrequent or unusual non-operating items.

In reporting non-GAAP measures in the future, we may make other adjustments for expenses and gains we do not consider reflective of core operating performance in a particular period. We may disclose other non-GAAP operating measures if we believe that such a presentation would be helpful for investors to evaluate our operating condition by including additional information.

Adjusted operating income is not a measure of total profitability, and therefore should not be considered in isolation or viewed as a substitute for U.S. GAAP net income. Our definition of adjusted operating income may not be comparable to similarly named measures reported by other companies, including our peers.

Adjustments to reconcile net income to adjusted operating income assume a 21% tax rate (unless otherwise indicated).

The following table includes a reconciliation of net income to adjusted operating income for the years ended December 31:

We recorded a pre-tax expense of $3.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2022, related to restructuring costs as we evaluate and appropriately size our organizational needs and expenses.

Management reviews the key metrics included within this section when analyzing the performance of our business. The metrics provided in this section exclude activity related to our run-off business, which is immaterial to our consolidated results of operations.

The following table sets forth selected operating performance measures on a primary basis as of or for the years ended December 31:

NIW for the year ended December 31, 2022 decreased 31% compared to 2021 primarily due to a smaller estimated private mortgage insurance market as both refinancing and purchase originations were impacted by increasing mortgage rates. We manage the quality of new business through pricing and our underwriting guidelines, which we modify from time to time as circumstances warrant.

The following table presents NIW by product for the years ended December 31:

The following table presents primary NIW by underlying type of mortgage for the years ended December 31:

The following table presents primary NIW by policy payment type for the years ended December 31:

The following table presents primary NIW by FICO score for the years ended December 31:

LTV ratio is calculated by dividing the original loan amount, excluding financed premium, by the property’s acquisition value or fair market value at the time of origination. The following table presents primary NIW by LTV ratio for the years ended December 31:

We have seen a higher concentration of loans with a DTI ratio of greater than 45% during 2022. This is in line with market trends as rising mortgage rates and recent home price appreciation have put pressure on affordability. We believe the levels are in line with our current risk appetite as we consider layered risk across multiple risk attributes, pricing and our portfolio credit mix.

IIF increased largely from NIW and increased persistency in the current year, partially offset by lapses and cancellations. Primary persistency rate was 80% and 62% for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. RIF increased primarily as a result of higher IIF.

The following table sets forth IIF and RIF as of the dates indicated:

The following table sets forth primary IIF by policy year as of the dates indicated:

The following table sets forth primary RIF by policy year as of the dates indicated:

The following table presents the development of primary IIF for the years ended December 31:

The following table sets forth primary IIF by LTV ratio at origination as of the dates indicated:

The following table sets forth primary RIF by LTV ratio at origination as of the dates indicated:

The following table sets forth primary IIF by FICO score at origination as of the dates indicated: