XML 30 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.4

Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2022
Expected Losses [Abstract] |
Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) | Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) Accounting Policy Expected loss to be paid (recovered) is equal to the present value of expected future cash outflows for loss and LAE payments, net of: (i) inflows for expected salvage, subrogation and other recoveries; and (ii) excess spread on underlying collateral, as applicable. Cash flows are discounted at current risk-free rates. The Company updates the discount rates each quarter and reflects the effect of such changes in economic loss development. Net expected loss to be paid (recovered) is net of amounts ceded to reinsurers. The Company’s net expected loss to be paid (recovered) incorporates management’s probability weighted scenarios. Expected cash outflows and inflows are probability weighted cash flows that reflect management’s assumptions about the likelihood of all possible outcomes based on all information available to the Company. Those assumptions consider the relevant facts and circumstances and are consistent with the information tracked and monitored through the Company’s risk-management activities. Expected loss to be paid (recovered) is important in that it represents the present value of amounts that the Company expects to pay or recover in future periods for all contracts. In circumstances where the Company purchased its own insured obligations that had expected losses, and in cases where issuers of insured obligations elected or the Company and an issuer mutually agreed as part of a negotiation to deliver the underlying collateral, insured obligation or a new security to the Company, expected loss to be paid (recovered) is reduced and the asset received is prospectively accounted for under the applicable guidance for that instrument. Insured obligations with expected losses that were purchased by the Company are referred to as Loss Mitigation Securities and are recorded in the investment portfolio at fair value, excluding the value of the Company’s insurance. For Loss Mitigation Securities, the difference between the purchase price of the insured obligation and the fair value excluding the value of the Company’s insurance (on the date of acquisition) is treated as a paid loss. See Note 7, Investments and Cash, and Note 9, Fair Value Measurement. Economic loss development represents the change in net expected loss to be paid (recovered) attributable to the effects of changes in the economic performance of insured transactions, changes in assumptions based on observed market trends, changes in discount rates, accretion of discount and the economic effects of loss mitigation efforts. In order to effectively evaluate and manage the economics and liquidity of the entire insured portfolio, management assigns ratings and calculates expected loss to be paid (recovered) in the same manner for all its exposures regardless of form or differing accounting models. The insured portfolio includes policies accounted for under various accounting models depending on the characteristics of the contract and the Company’s control rights. The three primary models are: (1) insurance, as described in Note 5, Contracts Accounted for as Insurance; (2) derivatives, as described in Note 6, Contracts Accounted for as Credit Derivatives, and Note 9, Fair Value Measurement; and (3) FG VIE consolidation, as described in Note 8, Financial Guaranty Variable Interest Entities and Consolidated Investment Vehicles. The Company has paid and expects to pay future losses and/or recover past losses on policies which fall under each of these accounting models. This note provides information regarding expected claim payments to be made and/or recovered under all contracts in the insured portfolio. Loss Estimation Process The Company’s loss reserve committees estimate expected loss to be paid (recovered) for all contracts by reviewing analyses that consider various scenarios with corresponding probabilities assigned to them. Depending upon the nature of the risk, the Company’s view of the potential size of any loss and the information available to the Company, that analysis may be based upon individually developed cash flow models, internal credit rating assessments, sector-driven loss severity assumptions and/or judgmental assessments. In the case of its assumed business, the Company may conduct its own analysis as just described or, depending on the Company’s view of the potential size of any loss and the information available to the Company, the Company may use loss estimates provided by ceding insurers. The Company monitors the performance of its transactions with expected losses and each quarter the Company’s loss reserve committees review and refresh their loss projection assumptions, scenarios and the probabilities they assign to those scenarios based on actual developments during the period and their view of future performance. The financial guaranties issued by the Company insure the credit performance of the guaranteed obligations over an extended period of time, in some cases over 30 years, and in most circumstances the Company has no right to cancel such financial guaranties. As a result, the Company’s estimate of ultimate loss on a policy is subject to significant uncertainty over the life of the insured transaction. Credit performance can be adversely affected by economic, fiscal and financial market variability over the life of most contracts. The Company does not use traditional actuarial approaches to determine its estimates of expected losses. The determination of expected loss to be paid (recovered) is an inherently subjective process involving numerous estimates, assumptions and judgments by management, using both internal and external data sources with regard to frequency, severity of loss, economic projections, governmental actions, negotiations, recovery rates, delinquency and prepayment rates (with respect to RMBS), timing of cash flows, and other factors that affect credit performance. These estimates, assumptions and judgments, and the factors on which they are based, may change materially over a reporting period, and have a material effect on the Company’s financial statements. Each quarter, the Company may revise its scenarios and update its assumptions, including the probability weightings of its scenarios based on public information as well as nonpublic information obtained through its surveillance and loss mitigation activities. Changes over a reporting period in the Company’s loss estimates for public finance obligations supported by specified revenue streams, such as revenue bonds issued by toll road authorities, municipal utilities or airport authorities, generally will be influenced by factors impacting their revenue levels, such as changes in demand; changing demographics; and other economic factors, especially if the obligations do not benefit from financial support from other tax revenues or governmental authorities. Changes over a reporting period in the Company’s loss estimates for its tax-supported and general obligation public finance transactions generally will be influenced by factors impacting the public issuer’s ability and willingness to pay, such as changes in the economy and population of the relevant area; changes in the issuer’s ability or willingness to raise taxes, decrease spending or receive federal assistance; new legislation; rating agency actions that affect the issuer’s ability to refinance maturing obligations or issue new debt at a reasonable cost; changes in the priority or amount of pensions and other obligations owed to workers; developments in restructuring or settlement negotiations; and other political and economic factors. Changes in loss estimates may also be affected by the Company’s loss mitigation efforts and other variables. Changes in the Company’s loss estimates for structured finance transactions generally will be influenced by factors impacting the performance of the assets supporting those transactions. For example, changes over a reporting period in the Company’s loss estimates for its RMBS transactions may be influenced by factors such as the level and timing of loan defaults experienced, changes in housing prices, results from the Company’s loss mitigation activities, and other variables. Changes to estimates of net expected loss to be paid (recovered) and net economic loss development (benefit) over a reporting period may be attributable to a number of interrelated factors such as changes in discount rates, improvement or deterioration of transaction performance, charge-offs, loss mitigation activity, changes to projected default curves, severity rates, and dispute resolution. Actual losses will ultimately depend on future events, transaction performance or other factors that are difficult to predict. As a result, the Company’s current projections of losses may be subject to considerable volatility and may not reflect the Company’s ultimate claims paid. In some instances, the terms of the Company’s policy or the terms of certain workout orders and resolutions give it the option to pay principal losses that have been recognized in the transaction but which it is not yet required to pay, thereby reducing the amount of guaranteed interest due in the future. The Company has sometimes exercised this option, which uses cash but reduces projected future losses. Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) and Net Economic Loss Development (Benefit) by Accounting Model
|  | Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) |  | Net Economic Loss Development (Benefit)
|  | As of December 31, |  | Year Ended December 31,
Accounting Model |  | 2022 |  | 2021 |  | 2022 |  | 2021 |  | 2020
|  | (in millions) |  |
Insurance (see Note 5) |  | $ | 205 |  |  | $ | 364 |  |  | $ | (112) |  |  | $ | (281) |  |  | $ | 142 |
FG VIEs (see Note 8) |  | 314 |  | (1) | 42 |  |  | (17) |  |  | (20) |  |  | 1 |
Credit derivatives (see Note 6) |  | 3 |  |  | 5 |  |  | 4 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 2 |
Total |  | $ | 522 |  |  | $ | 411 |  |  | $ | (125) |  |  | $ | (287) |  |  | $ | 145 |
____________________ (1) The increase in expected loss to be paid for FG VIEs primarily relates to trusts established as part of the 2022 Puerto Rico Resolutions (Puerto Rico Trusts) that were consolidated as a result of the 2022 Puerto Rico Resolutions. Prior to the 2022 Puerto Rico Resolutions, all Puerto Rico Exposures were accounted for as insurance. The following tables present a roll forward of net expected loss to be paid (recovered) for all contracts, which are accounted for under one of the following accounting models: insurance, derivative and FG VIE. The Company used risk-free rates for U.S. dollar denominated obligations that ranged from 3.82% to 4.69% with a weighted average of 4.08% as of December 31, 2022 and 0.00% to 1.98% with a weighted average of 1.02% as of December 31, 2021. Expected losses to be paid for U.S. dollar denominated transactions represented approximately 98.5% and 97.2% of the total as of December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively. Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) Roll Forward
| Year Ended December 31,
| 2022 |  | 2021 |  | 2020
| (in millions)
Net expected loss to be paid (recovered), beginning of period | $ | 411 |  |  | $ | 529 |  |  | $ | 737 |
Economic loss development (benefit) due to: |  |  |  |  |
Accretion of discount | 16 |  |  | 7 |  |  | 9 |
Changes in discount rates | (115) |  |  | (33) |  |  | 13 |
Changes in timing and assumptions | (26) |  |  | (261) |  |  | 123 |
Total economic loss development (benefit) | (125) |  |  | (287) |  |  | 145 |
Net (paid) recovered losses (1) | 236 |  |  | 169 |  |  | (353) |
Net expected loss to be paid (recovered), end of period | $ | 522 |  |  | $ | 411 |  |  | $ | 529 |
____________________ (1) Net (paid) recovered losses in 2022 include the net amounts received pursuant to the Puerto Rico Resolutions, as described in Note 3, Outstanding Exposure. Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) Roll Forward by Sector
|  | Year Ended December 31, 2022
Sector |  | Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of December 31, 2021 |  | Economic Loss Development (Benefit) |  | Net (Paid) Recovered Losses (1) |  | Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of December 31, 2022
|  | (in millions)
Public finance: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
U.S. public finance |  | $ | 197 |  |  | $ | 19 |  |  | $ | 187 |  |  | $ | 403 |
Non-U.S. public finance |  | 12 |  |  | (2) |  |  | (1) |  |  | 9 |
Public finance |  | 209 |  |  | 17 |  |  | 186 |  |  | 412 |
Structured finance: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
U.S. RMBS |  | 150 |  |  | (143) |  |  | 59 |  |  | 66 |
Other structured finance |  | 52 |  |  | 1 |  |  | (9) |  |  | 44 |
Structured finance |  | 202 |  |  | (142) |  |  | 50 |  |  | 110 |
Total |  | $ | 411 |  |  | $ | (125) |  |  | $ | 236 |  |  | $ | 522 |
|  | Year Ended December 31, 2021
Sector |  | Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of December 31, 2020 |  | Economic Loss Development (Benefit) |  | Net (Paid) Recovered Losses (1) |  | Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of December 31, 2021
|  | (in millions)
Public finance: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
U.S. public finance |  | $ | 305 |  |  | $ | (182) |  |  | $ | 74 |  |  | $ | 197 |
Non-U.S. public finance |  | 36 |  |  | (22) |  |  | (2) |  |  | 12 |
Public finance |  | 341 |  |  | (204) |  |  | 72 |  |  | 209 |
Structured finance: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
U.S. RMBS |  | 148 |  |  | (100) |  |  | 102 |  |  | 150 |
Other structured finance |  | 40 |  |  | 17 |  |  | (5) |  |  | 52 |
Structured finance |  | 188 |  |  | (83) |  |  | 97 |  |  | 202 |
Total |  | $ | 529 |  |  | $ | (287) |  |  | $ | 169 |  |  | $ | 411 |
|  | Year Ended December 31, 2020
Sector |  | Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of December 31, 2019 |  | Economic Loss Development (Benefit) |  | Net (Paid) Recovered Losses (1) |  | Net Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered) as of December 31, 2020
|  | (in millions)
Public finance: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
U.S. public finance |  | $ | 531 |  |  | $ | 190 |  |  | $ | (416) |  |  | $ | 305 |
Non-U.S. public finance |  | 23 |  |  | 13 |  |  | — |  |  | 36 |
Public finance |  | 554 |  |  | 203 |  |  | (416) |  |  | 341 |
Structured finance: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
U.S. RMBS |  | 146 |  |  | (71) |  |  | 73 |  |  | 148 |
Other structured finance |  | 37 |  |  | 13 |  |  | (10) |  |  | 40 |
Structured finance |  | 183 |  |  | (58) |  |  | 63 |  |  | 188 |
Total |  | $ | 737 |  |  | $ | 145 |  |  | $ | (353) |  |  | $ | 529 |
____________________ (1) Net of ceded paid losses, whether or not such amounts have been settled with reinsurers. Ceded paid losses are typically settled 45 days after the end of the reporting period. Such amounts are recorded as reinsurance recoverable on paid losses in “other assets”. The tables above include: (a) net LAE paid of $33 million, $36 million and $25 million for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively; and (b) net expected LAE to be paid of $11 million as of December 31, 2022 and $26 million as of December 31, 2021. U.S. RMBS Loss Projections The Company projects losses on its insured U.S. RMBS on a transaction-by-transaction basis by projecting the performance of the underlying pool of mortgages over time and then applying the structural features (i.e., payment priorities and tranching) of the RMBS and any expected representation and warranty recoveries/payables to the projected performance of the collateral over time. The resulting projected claim payments or reimbursements are then discounted using risk-free rates. The further behind mortgage borrowers fall in making payments, the more likely it is that they will default. The rate at which borrowers from a particular delinquency category (number of monthly payments behind) eventually default is referred to as the “liquidation rate.” The Company derives its liquidation rate assumptions from observed roll rates, which are the rates at which loans progress from one delinquency category to the next and eventually to default and liquidation. The Company applies liquidation rates to the mortgage loan collateral in each delinquency category and makes certain timing assumptions to project near-term mortgage collateral defaults from loans that are currently delinquent. Mortgage borrowers that are not behind on payments and have not fallen two or more payments behind in the last two years (generally considered performing borrowers) have demonstrated an ability and willingness to pay through challenging economic periods, and as a result are viewed as less likely to default than delinquent borrowers or those that have experienced delinquency recently. Performing borrowers that eventually default will also need to progress through delinquency categories before any defaults occur. The Company projects how many of the currently performing loans will default and when they will default, by first converting the projected near term defaults of delinquent borrowers derived from liquidation rates into a vector of conditional default rates (CDR), then projecting how the CDR will develop over time. Loans that are defaulted pursuant to the CDR after the near-term liquidation of currently delinquent loans represent defaults of currently performing loans and projected re-performing loans. A CDR is the outstanding principal amount of defaulted loans liquidated in the current month divided by the remaining outstanding amount of the whole pool of loans (collateral pool balance). The collateral pool balance decreases over time as a result of scheduled principal payments, partial and whole principal prepayments, and defaults. In order to derive collateral pool losses from the collateral pool defaults it has projected, the Company applies a loss severity. The loss severity is the amount of loss the transaction experiences on a defaulted loan after the application of net proceeds from the disposal of the underlying property. The Company projects loss severities by sector and vintage based on its experience to date. The Company continues to update its evaluation of these loss severities as new information becomes available. The Company projects the overall future cash flow from a collateral pool by adjusting the payment stream from the principal and interest contractually due on the underlying mortgages for the collateral losses it projects as described above; assumed voluntary prepayments; and servicer advances. The Company then applies an individual model of the structure of the transaction to the projected future cash flow from that transaction’s collateral pool to project the Company’s future claims and claim reimbursements for that individual transaction. Finally, the projected claims and reimbursements are discounted using risk-free rates. The Company runs several sets of assumptions regarding mortgage collateral performance, or scenarios, and probability weights them. Each period the Company makes a judgment as to whether to change the assumptions it uses to make RMBS loss projections based on its observation during the period of the performance of its insured transactions (including early-stage delinquencies, late-stage delinquencies and loss severity) as well as the residential property market and economy in general, and, to the extent it observes changes, it makes a judgment as to whether those changes are normal fluctuations or part of a trend. The assumptions that the Company uses to project RMBS losses are shown in the sections below. Net Economic Loss Development (Benefit) U.S. RMBS
| Year Ended December 31,
| 2022 |  | 2021 |  | 2020
| (in millions)
First lien U.S. RMBS | $ | (36) |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | (45) |
Second lien U.S. RMBS | (107) |  |  | (100) |  |  | (26) |
First Lien U.S. RMBS Loss Projections: Alt-A, Prime, Option ARM and Subprime The majority of projected losses in first lien U.S. RMBS transactions are expected to come from non-performing mortgage loans (those that are or have recently been two or more payments behind, have been modified, are in foreclosure, or have been foreclosed upon). Changes in the amount of non-performing loans from the amount projected in the previous period are one of the primary drivers of loss projections in this portfolio. In order to determine the number of defaults resulting from these delinquent and foreclosed loans, the Company applies a liquidation rate assumption to loans in each of various non-performing categories. The Company arrived at its liquidation rates based on data purchased from a third-party provider and assumptions about how delays in the foreclosure process and loan modifications may ultimately affect the rate at which loans are liquidated. Each quarter the Company reviews recent data and (if necessary) adjusts its liquidation rates based on its observations. The following table shows liquidation assumptions for various non-performing and re-performing categories. First Lien U.S. RMBS Liquidation Rates
| As of December 31,
| 2022 |  | 2021
Current but recently delinquent: |  |  |
Alt-A and Prime | 20% |  | 20%
Option ARM | 20% |  | 20%
Subprime | 20% |  | 20%
30 – 59 Days Delinquent: |  |  |
Alt-A and Prime | 35% |  | 35%
Option ARM | 35% |  | 35%
Subprime | 30% |  | 30%
60 – 89 Days Delinquent: |  |  |
Alt-A and Prime | 40% |  | 40%
Option ARM | 45% |  | 45%
Subprime | 40% |  | 40%
90+ Days Delinquent: |  |  |
Alt-A and Prime | 55% |  | 55%
Option ARM | 60% |  | 60%
Subprime | 45% |  | 45%
Bankruptcy: |  |  |
Alt-A and Prime | 45% |  | 45%
Option ARM | 50% |  | 50%
Subprime | 40% |  | 40%
Foreclosure: |  |  |
Alt-A and Prime | 60% |  | 60%
Option ARM | 65% |  | 65%
Subprime | 55% |  | 55%
Real Estate Owned |  |  |
All | 100% |  | 100%
While the Company uses the liquidation rates above to project defaults of non-performing loans (including current loans that were recently modified or delinquent), it projects defaults on presently current loans by applying a CDR curve. The start of that CDR curve is based on the defaults the Company projects will emerge from currently nonperforming, recently nonperforming and modified loans. The total amount of expected defaults from the non-performing loans is translated into a constant CDR (i.e., the CDR plateau), which, if applied for each of the next 36 months, would be sufficient to produce approximately the amount of defaults that were calculated to emerge from the various delinquency categories. The CDR thus calculated individually on the delinquent collateral pool for each RMBS is then used as the starting point for the CDR curve used to project defaults of the presently performing loans. In the most heavily weighted scenario (the base scenario), after the 36-month CDR plateau period, each transaction’s CDR is projected to improve over 12 months to a final CDR of 5% of the plateau CDR. In the base scenario, the Company assumes the final CDR will be reached 1 year after the 36-month CDR plateau period. Under the Company’s methodology, defaults projected to occur in the first 36 months represent defaults that can be attributed to loans that were recently modified or delinquent, or that are currently delinquent or in foreclosure, while the defaults projected to occur using the projected CDR trend after the first 36-month period represent defaults attributable to borrowers that are currently performing or are projected to re-perform. Another important driver of loss projections is loss severity, which is the amount of loss the transaction incurs on a loan after the application of net proceeds from the disposal of the underlying property. The Company assumes in the base scenario that recent (still historically elevated) loss severities will improve after loans with accumulated delinquencies and foreclosure cost are liquidated. The Company is assuming in the base scenario that the recent levels generally will continue for another 18 months. The Company determines its initial loss severity based on actual recent experience. Each quarter the Company reviews available data and (if necessary) adjusts its severities based on its observations. The Company then assumes that loss severities begin returning to levels consistent with underwriting assumptions beginning after the initial 18-month period, declining to 40% in the base scenario over 2.5 years. The following table shows the range as well as the average, weighted by outstanding net insured par, for key assumptions used in the calculation of expected loss to be paid (recovered) for individual transactions for vintage 2004 - 2008 first lien U.S. RMBS. Key Assumptions in Base Scenario Expected Loss Estimates First Lien U.S. RMBS
| As of December 31, 2022 |  | As of December 31, 2021
| Range |  | Weighted Average |  | Range |  | Weighted Average
Alt-A and Prime: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Plateau CDR | 1.6 | % | – | 11.5% |  | 5.1% |  | 0.9 | % | – | 11.6% |  | 5.9%
Final CDR | 0.1 | % | – | 0.6% |  | 0.3% |  | 0.0 | % | – | 0.6% |  | 0.3%
Initial loss severity: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
2005 and prior | 50% |  |  |  | 60% |  |
2006 | 50% |  |  |  | 60% |  |
2007+ | 50% |  |  |  | 60% |  |
Option ARM: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Plateau CDR | 2.0 | % | – | 7.7% |  | 4.3% |  | 1.8 | % | – | 11.9% |  | 5.6%
Final CDR | 0.1 | % | – | 0.4% |  | 0.2% |  | 0.1 | % | – | 0.6% |  | 0.3%
Initial loss severity: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
2005 and prior | 50% |  |  |  | 60% |  |
2006 | 50% |  |  |  | 60% |  |
2007+ | 50% |  |  |  | 60% |  |
Subprime: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Plateau CDR | 2.7 | % | – | 9.7% |  | 5.6% |  | 2.9 | % | – | 10.0% |  | 6.0%
Final CDR | 0.1 | % | – | 0.5% |  | 0.3% |  | 0.1 | % | – | 0.5% |  | 0.3%
Initial loss severity: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
2005 and prior | 50% |  |  |  | 60% |  |
2006 | 50% |  |  |  | 60% |  |
2007+ | 50% |  |  |  | 60% |  |
The rate at which the principal amount of loans is voluntarily prepaid may impact both the amount of losses projected (since that amount is a function of the CDR, the loss severity and the loan balance over time) as well as the amount of excess spread (the amount by which the interest paid by the borrowers on the underlying loan exceeds the amount of interest owed on the insured obligations). The assumption for the voluntary conditional prepayment rate (CPR) follows a pattern similar to that of the CDR. The current level of voluntary prepayments is assumed to continue for the plateau period before gradually increasing over 12 months to the final CPR, which is assumed to be 15% in the base scenario. For transactions where the initial CPR is higher than the final CPR, the initial CPR is held constant and the final CPR is not used. These CPR assumptions are the same as those the Company used for December 31, 2021. The Company incorporates a recovery assumption into its reserving model to reflect observed trends in recoveries of deferred principal balances of modified first lien loans that had been previously written off. For transactions where the Company has detailed loan information, the Company assumes that 20% of the deferred loan balances will eventually be recovered upon sale of the collateral or refinancing of the loans. In estimating expected losses, the Company modeled and probability weighted sensitivities for first lien U.S. RMBS transactions by varying its assumptions of how fast a recovery is expected to occur. One of the variables used to model sensitivities was how quickly the CDR returned to its modeled equilibrium, which was defined as 5% of the plateau CDR. The Company also stressed CPR and the speed of recovery of loss severity rates. The Company probability weighted a total of five scenarios as of December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021. Certain transactions benefit from excess spread when they are supported by large portions of fixed-rate assets (either originally fixed or modified to be fixed) but have insured floating rate debt linked to LIBOR. An increase in projected LIBOR decreases excess spread, while lower LIBOR results in higher excess spread. ICE Benchmark Administration (IBA) and the Financial Conduct Authority have announced that LIBOR will be discontinued after June 30, 2023. The Company believes that the reference to LIBOR in such floating rate RMBS debt will be replaced, by operation of law in accordance with federal legislation enacted in March 2022, with a rate based on the Secured Overnight Finance Rate (SOFR). The Company used a similar approach to establish its pessimistic and optimistic scenarios as of December 31, 2022 as it used as of December 31, 2021, increasing and decreasing the periods of stress from those used in the base scenario. In the Company’s most stressful scenario where loss severities were assumed to rise and then recover over nine years and the initial ramp-down of the CDR was assumed to occur over 16 months, expected loss to be paid would increase from current projections by approximately $13 million for all first lien U.S. RMBS transactions. In the Company’s least stressful scenario where the CDR plateau was six months shorter (30 months, effectively assuming that liquidation rates would improve) and the CDR recovery was more pronounced (including an initial ramp-down of the CDR over eight months), expected loss to be paid would decrease from current projections by approximately $8 million for all first lien U.S. RMBS transactions. Second Lien U.S. RMBS Loss Projections Second lien U.S. RMBS transactions include both home equity lines of credit (HELOC) and closed end second lien mortgages. The Company believes the primary variable affecting its expected losses in second lien RMBS transactions is the amount and timing of future losses or recoveries in the collateral pool supporting the transactions (including recoveries from previously charged-off loans). Expected losses are also a function of the structure of the transaction, the prepayment speeds of the collateral, the interest rate environment and assumptions about loss severity. The Company estimates the amount of loans that will default over the next several years by first calculating expected liquidation rates for delinquent loans, and applying liquidation rates to currently delinquent loans in order to arrive at an expected dollar amount of defaults from currently delinquent collateral (plateau period defaults). Similar to first lien U.S. RMBS transactions, the Company then calculates a CDR that will cause the targeted amount of liquidations to occur during the plateau period. Prior to the third quarter of 2022, for the base scenario, the CDR (the plateau CDR) was held constant for six months. Once the plateau period had ended, the CDR was assumed to gradually trend down in uniform increments to its final long-term steady state CDR. (The long-term steady state CDR was calculated as the constant CDR that would have yielded the amount of losses originally expected at underwriting, subject to a floor). In the base case scenario, the time over which the CDR trended down to its final CDR was 28 months. Therefore, the total stress period for second lien transactions was 34 months. The Company has observed lower than expected default rates and longer liquidation timelines due to significant home price appreciation and special servicing activity which now favors modifications and foreclosure actions rather than charge-offs at 180 days delinquent. In the third quarter of 2022, the Company extended the time over which a portion of the delinquent loans default from six months to 36 months in the base scenario (conforming to the methodology used for first lien U.S. RMBS transactions). After the plateau period, as with first lien U.S. RMBS transactions, the CDR trends down over one year to 5% of the plateau CDR. These changes in the shape of the CDR curve result in a longer period of stress defaults (48 months in the base scenario), but at lower default levels leading to lower overall levels of expected losses. HELOC loans generally permitted the borrower to pay only interest for an initial period (often ten years) and, after that period, require the borrower to make both the monthly interest payment and a monthly principal payment. This causes the borrower's total monthly payment to increase, sometimes substantially, at the end of the initial interest-only period. A substantial number of loans in the Company’s insured transactions had been modified to extend the interest-only period to 15 years. Approximately 80% of the modified loans had reset to fully amortizing by the end of 2022, and most of the remaining loans will reset over the next several years. Recently, the Company has observed the performance of the modified loans that have finally reset to full amortization (which represent the majority of extended loans), and noted low levels of delinquency, even with substantial increases in monthly payments. This observed performance lowers the level of uncertainty regarding this modified cohort as the remainder continue to reset. When a second lien loan defaults, there is generally a low recovery. The Company assumed, as of December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, that it will generally recover 2% of future defaulting collateral at the time of charge-off, with additional amounts of post charge-off recoveries projected to come in over time. A second lien on the borrower’s home may be retained in the Company’s second lien transactions after the loan is charged off and the loss applied to the transaction, particularly in cases where the holder of the first lien has not foreclosed. If the second lien is retained and the value of the home increases, the servicer may be able to use the second lien to increase recoveries, either by arranging for the borrower to resume payments or by realizing value upon the sale of the underlying real estate. The Company evaluates its assumptions quarterly based on actual recoveries of charged-off loans observed from period to period and reasonable expectations of future recoveries. In instances where the Company is able to obtain information on the lien status of charged-off loans, it assumes there will be a certain level of future recoveries of the balance of the charged-off loans where the second lien is still intact. The Company’s recovery assumption for charged-off loans is 30%, as shown in the table below, based on observed trends and reasonable expectations of future recoveries. Such recoveries are assumed to be received evenly over the next five years. If the recovery rate decreases to 20% expected loss to be paid would increase from current projections by approximately $37 million. If the recovery rate increases to 40%, expected loss to be paid would decrease from current projections by approximately $37 million. The rate at which the principal amount of loans is prepaid may impact both the amount of losses projected as well as the amount of excess spread. In the base scenario, an average CPR (based on experience of the past year) is assumed to continue until the end of the plateau before gradually increasing to the final CPR over the same period the CDR decreases. The final CPR is assumed to be 15% for second lien U.S. RMBS transactions (in the base scenario), which is lower than the historical average but reflects the Company’s continued uncertainty about the projected performance of the borrowers in these transactions. For transactions where the initial CPR is higher than the final CPR, the initial CPR is held constant and the final CPR is not used. This pattern is consistent with how the Company modeled the CPR as of December 31, 2021. To the extent that prepayments differ from projected levels it could materially change the Company’s projected excess spread and losses. In estimating expected losses, the Company modeled and probability weighted five scenarios, each with a different CDR curve applicable to the period preceding the return to the long-term steady state CDR. The Company believes that the level of the elevated CDR and the length of time it will persist and the ultimate prepayment rate are the primary drivers of the amount of losses the collateral will likely suffer. The following table shows the range as well as the average, weighted by net par outstanding, for key assumptions used in the calculation of expected loss to be paid (recovered) for individual transactions for vintage 2004 - 2008 HELOCs. Key Assumptions in Base Scenario Expected Loss Estimates HELOCs
| As of December 31, 2022 |  | As of December 31, 2021
| Range |  | Weighted Average |  | Range |  | Weighted Average
Plateau CDR | 0.4 | % | – | 8.4% |  | 3.5% |  | 6.5 | % | – | 39.6% |  | 16.4%
Final CDR trended down to | 0.0 | % | – | 0.4% |  | 0.2% |  | 1.0% |  |
Liquidation rates: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Current but recently delinquent | 20% |  |  |  | 20% |  |
30 – 59 Days Delinquent | 30 |  |  |  | 30 |  |
60 – 89 Days Delinquent | 40 |  |  |  | 40 |  |
90+ Days Delinquent | 60 |  |  |  | 60 |  |
Bankruptcy | 55 |  |  |  | 55 |  |
Foreclosure | 55 |  |  |  | 55 |  |
Real Estate Owned | 100 |  |  |  | 100 |  |
Loss severity on future defaults | 98% |  |  |  | 98% |  |
Projected future recoveries on previously charged-off loans | 30% |  |  |  | 30% |  |
The Company continues to evaluate the assumptions affecting its modeling results. The Company believes the most important driver of its projected second lien RMBS losses is the performance of its HELOC transactions. The Company updated its assumptions related to the CDR plateau and ramp-down during the third quarter of 2022. The Company’s base scenario assumed a 36-month CDR plateau and a 12-month ramp-down (for a total stress period of 48 months), compared to a six-month CDR plateau and a 28-month ramp-down (for a total stress period of 34 months). The Company modeled scenarios with a longer period of elevated defaults and others with a shorter period of elevated defaults. In the Company’s most stressful scenario, increasing the CDR plateau to 42 months and increasing the ramp-down by four months to 16 months (for a total stress period of 58 months) would decrease the expected recovery by approximately $1 million for HELOC transactions. On the other hand, in the Company’s least stressful scenario, reducing the CDR plateau to 30 months and decreasing the length of the CDR ramp-down to eight months (for a total stress period of 38 months), and lowering the ultimate prepayment rate to 10% would increase the expected recovery by approximately $2 million for HELOC transactions. Structured Finance Excluding U.S. RMBS The Company projected that its total net expected loss to be paid across its troubled structured finance exposures excluding U.S. RMBS as of December 31, 2022 was $44 million. The largest component of these structured finance losses were student loan securitizations issued by private issuers with $47 million in BIG net par outstanding. In general, the projected losses of these student loan securitizations are due to: (i) the poor credit performance of private student loan collateral and high loss severities; or (ii) high interest rates on auction rate securities with respect to which the auctions have failed. The Company also had exposure to troubled life insurance transactions with BIG net par of $40 million as of December 31, 2022. Recovery Litigation and Dispute Resolution In the ordinary course of their respective businesses, certain of AGL’s subsidiaries are involved in litigation or other dispute resolution with third parties to recover insurance losses paid or return benefits received in prior periods or prevent or reduce losses in the future. The impact, if any, of these and other proceedings on the amount of recoveries the Company ultimately receives and losses it pays in the future is uncertain, and the impact of any one or more of these proceedings during any quarter or year could be material to the Company’s financial statements. The Company has asserted claims in a number of legal proceedings in connection with its exposure to Puerto Rico. See Note 3, Outstanding Exposure, for a discussion of the Company’s exposure to Puerto Rico and related recovery litigation being pursued by the Company.

X
- Definition Expected Loss to be Paid [Text Block] + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | ago_ExpectedLossToBePaidTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | ago_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition Expected Losses [Abstract] + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | ago_ExpectedLossesAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | ago_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration