The Company carries a significant portion of its assets and liabilities at fair value. Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (i.e., exit or transfer price). The price represents the price available in the principal market for the asset or liability. If there is no principal market, then the price is based on a hypothetical market that maximizes the value received for an asset or minimizes the amount paid for a liability (i.e., the most advantageous market).

Fair value is based on quoted market prices, where available. If listed prices or quotes are not available, fair value is based on either (i) internally developed models that primarily use, as inputs, market-based or independently sourced market parameters (including, but not limited to, yield curves, interest rates, and debt prices) or (ii) discounted cash flows, using a third party’s proprietary pricing models. In addition to market information, when applicable, the models also incorporate transaction details, such as the instrument’s maturity, and contractual features that reduce the Company’s credit exposure (e.g., collateral rights).

Valuation adjustments may be made to ensure that financial instruments are recorded at fair value. These adjustments include amounts to reflect counterparty credit quality, the Company’s creditworthiness and constraints on liquidity. As markets and products develop and the pricing transparency for certain products changes, the Company may refine its methodologies and assumptions. During 2023, no changes were made to the Company’s valuation models that had (or are expected to have) a material impact on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets or statements of operations and comprehensive income.

The Company’s valuation methods produce fair values that may not be indicative of net realizable value or future fair values. The use of different methodologies or assumptions to determine fair value of certain financial instruments could result in a materially different estimate of fair value at the reporting date.

The categorization within the fair value hierarchy is determined based on whether the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value are observable or unobservable. Observable inputs reflect market data obtained from independent sources, while unobservable inputs reflect Company estimates of market assumptions. The fair value hierarchy prioritizes model inputs into three broad levels, with Level 1 being the highest and Level 3 the lowest. The categorization, of an asset or liability, within the hierarchy is based on the lowest level of significant input to its valuation.

Level 2—Quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active; and observable inputs other than quoted prices, such as interest rates or yield curves and other inputs derived from, or corroborated by, observable market inputs.

Level 3—Model derived valuations in which one or more significant inputs or significant value drivers are unobservable. Financial instruments are considered Level 3 when their values are (i) determined using pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies or similar techniques and (ii) at least one significant model assumption or input is unobservable. Level 3 financial instruments also include those for which the determination of fair value requires significant management judgment or estimation.

There was a transfer of a fixed-maturity security in the investment portfolio from Level 3 to Level 2 during 2023. There was also a transfer of fixed-maturity securities in the investment and FG VIE portfolios from Level 2 to Level 3 during 2023. There were no other transfers from or into Level 3 during the periods presented.

The fair value of fixed-maturity securities is generally based on prices received from third-party pricing services or alternative pricing sources that provide reasonable levels of price transparency. The pricing services prepare estimates of fair value using their pricing models, which take into account: benchmark yields, reported trades, broker/dealer quotes, issuer spreads, two-sided markets, benchmark securities, bids, offers, reference data, industry and economic events and sector groupings. Additional valuation factors that can be taken into account are nominal spreads and liquidity adjustments. The pricing services evaluate each asset class based on relevant market and credit information, perceived market movements and sector news.

In many cases, benchmark yields have proven to be more reliable indicators of the market for a security, as compared to reported trades for infrequently traded securities and distressed transactions. The extent of the use of each input is dependent on the asset class and the market conditions. The valuation of fixed-maturity securities is more subjective when markets are less liquid due to the lack of market-based inputs.

As of December 31, 2023, the Company used models to price 191 securities. All Level 3 securities were priced with the assistance of independent third parties. The pricing is based on a discounted cash flow approach using the third party’s proprietary pricing models. The models use inputs such as projected prepayment speeds; severity assumptions; recovery lag assumptions; estimated default rates (determined based on an analysis of collateral attributes, historical collateral performance, borrower profiles and other features relevant to the evaluation of collateral credit quality); home price appreciation/depreciation rates based on macroeconomic forecasts; and recent trading activity. The yield used to discount the projected cash flows is determined by reviewing various attributes of the security including collateral type, weighted average life, sensitivity to losses, vintage, and convexity, in conjunction with market data on comparable securities. Significant changes to any of these inputs could have materially changed the expected timing of cash flows within these securities, which could have significantly affected the fair value of the securities.

Short-term investments that are traded in active markets are classified as Level 1 as their value is based on quoted market prices. Securities such as discount notes are classified as Level 2 because these securities are typically not actively traded due to their approaching maturity and, as such, their cost approximates fair value.

The fair value of CCS, which is reported in other assets on the consolidated balance sheets, represents the difference between the present value of the remaining expected put option premium payments under AGC CCS and AGM’s Committed Preferred Trust Securities (the AGM CPS) agreements and the estimated present value that the Company would hypothetically have to pay currently for a comparable security (see Note 12, Long-Term Debt and Credit Facilities). The change in fair value of the AGC CCS and AGM CPS are reported in “fair value gains (losses) on committed capital securities” in the consolidated statements of operations. The estimated current cost of the Company’s CCS is based on several factors, including AGM and

The Company classified assets included in the Company’s various supplemental executive retirement plans as either Level 1 or Level 2. The fair value of these assets is based on the observable published daily values of the underlying mutual funds included in the plans (Level 1) or based upon the NAV of the funds if a published daily value is not available (Level 2). The NAVs are based on observable information. The change in fair value of these assets is reported in “other operating expenses” in the consolidated statements of operations.

The Company’s credit derivatives in the Insurance segment primarily consist of insured CDS contracts. These instruments qualify as derivatives under GAAP, and require fair value measurement, with changes in fair value reported in the consolidated statements of operations. The Company did not enter into CDS contracts with the intent to trade these contracts. Additionally, the Company may not unilaterally terminate a CDS contract, absent an event of default or termination event that entitles the Company to terminate such contract. However, for certain CDS transactions, the Company has mutually negotiated with various counterparties to terminate such transactions. In transactions where the counterparty does not have the right to terminate, such transactions were generally terminated for an amount that approximated the present value of future premiums (or for a negotiated amount), rather than fair value.

The terms of the Company’s CDS contracts differ from more standardized credit derivative contracts sold by companies outside the financial guaranty industry. The non-standard terms generally include the absence of collateral support agreements or immediate settlement provisions. In addition, the Company employs relatively high attachment points and does not exit derivatives it sells, except under specific circumstances such as mutually negotiated agreements with counterparties. Management considers the non-standard terms of the Company’s credit derivative contracts in determining the fair value of these contracts.

Due to the lack of quoted prices and other observable inputs for its instruments or for similar instruments, the Company determines the fair value of its credit derivative contracts primarily through internally developed, proprietary models that use both observable and unobservable market data inputs. There is no established market where financial guaranty insured credit derivatives are actively traded; therefore, management has determined that the exit market for the Company’s credit derivatives is a hypothetical one based on its entry market. These contracts are classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy as there are multiple unobservable inputs deemed significant to the valuation model, most importantly the Company’s estimate of the value of the non-standard terms and conditions of its credit derivative contracts and how the Company’s own credit spread affects the pricing of its transactions.

The fair value of the Company’s credit derivative contracts generally represents the difference between the present value of remaining premiums the Company expects to receive and the estimated present value of premiums that a financial guarantor of comparable credit-worthiness would hypothetically charge at the reporting date for the same protection. The fair value of the Company’s credit derivatives depends on a number of factors, including notional amount of the contract, expected term, credit spreads, changes in interest rates, the credit ratings of referenced entities, the Company’s own credit risk, and remaining contractual cash flows. The expected remaining contractual premium cash flows are the most readily observable inputs since they are based on the CDS contractual terms. Credit spreads capture the effect of recovery rates and performance of underlying assets of these contracts, among other factors. Consistent with previous years, market conditions at December 31, 2023 were such that market prices of the Company’s CDS contracts were not available.

The various inputs and assumptions that are key to the measurement of the Company’s fair value for CDS contracts are as follows: the gross spread, the allocation of gross spread among the bank profit, net spread and hedge cost and the weighted average life (which is based on debt service schedules). The Company obtains published gross spreads on its outstanding contracts from third-party market data sources (e.g., dealer spread tables for the collateral similar to assets within the Company’s transactions), as well as collateral-specific spreads provided by or obtained from market sources. The bank profit represents profit the originator, usually an investment bank, realizes for structuring and funding the transaction; the net spread represents the premiums paid to the Company for the Company’s credit protection provided; and the hedge cost represents the cost of CDS protection purchased by the originator to hedge its counterparty credit risk exposure to the Company.

The premium the Company receives is referred to as the “net spread.” The Company’s pricing model considers not only how credit spreads on its insured risks affect pricing, but also how the Company’s own credit spread affects the pricing of its transactions. The Company’s own credit risk is factored into the determination of net spread based on the quoted market price for credit protection bought on the Company, as reflected by quoted market prices on CDS contracts referencing AGC. Due to the relatively low volume and characteristics of CDS contracts remaining in AGM’s portfolio, changes in AGM’s CDS spreads do not significantly affect the fair value of these CDS contracts. The Company obtains the quoted price of CDS contracts traded on AGC from market data sources published by third parties. The cost to acquire CDS protection referencing AGC affects the amount of spread on CDS transactions that the Company retains and, hence, their fair value. As the cost to acquire CDS protection referencing AGC increases, the amount of premium the Company retains on a transaction generally decreases.

The amount of premium a financial guaranty insurance market participant can demand is inversely related to the cost of credit protection on the insurance company as measured by market credit spreads assuming all other assumptions remain constant. This is because the buyers of credit protection typically hedge a portion of their risk to the financial guarantor, because the contractual terms of the Company’s contracts typically do not require the posting of collateral by the guarantor. The extent of the hedge depends on the types of instruments insured and the current market conditions.

In the Company’s valuation model, the premium the Company captures is not permitted to go below the minimum rate that the Company would currently charge to assume similar risks. This assumption can have the effect of limiting the amount of unrealized gains that are recognized on certain CDS contracts. Approximately 11.5%, based on fair value, of the Company’s CDS contracts were fair valued using this minimum premium as of December 31, 2023. As of December 31, 2022, the use of the minimum premium did not have an effect on fair value.

A credit derivative liability on protection sold is the result of contractual cash inflows on in-force transactions that are lower than what a hypothetical financial guarantor could receive if it sold protection on the same risk as of the reporting date. If the Company were able to freely exchange these contracts (i.e., assuming its contracts did not contain proscriptions on transfer and there was a viable exchange market), it would realize a loss representing the difference between the lower contractual premiums to which it is entitled and the current market premiums for a similar contract. The Company determines the fair value of its CDS contracts by applying the difference between the current net spread and the contractual net spread for the remaining duration of each contract to the notional value of such contract and then discounting such amounts using the applicable discount rate corresponding to the weighted average remaining life of the contract.

•Due to the non-standard terms under which the Company enters into derivative contracts, the fair value of its credit derivatives may not reflect the same prices observed in an actively traded market of credit derivatives that do not contain terms and conditions similar to those observed in the financial guaranty market.

FG VIEs include Puerto Rico Trusts and structured finance and other FG VIEs. As of December 31, 2023, assets in the Puerto Rico Trusts, consisted of one fixed-maturity debt security classified as Level 3. As of December 31, 2022, assets in the Puerto Rico Trusts, consisted primarily of New Recovery Bonds and CVIs classified as Level 2. The Company elected the FVO for the Puerto Rico Trusts’ liabilities and they are classified as Level 3. See “ - Fixed-Maturity Securities” above for a description of the fair value methodology for the New Recovery Bonds and CVIs in the Puerto Rico Trusts. Structured finance and other FG VIEs’ assets and liabilities are carried at fair value under the FVO and are classified as Level 3.

The fair value of the residential mortgage loan FG VIEs’ assets is generally sensitive to changes in estimated prepayment speeds; estimated default rates (determined on the basis of an analysis of collateral attributes such as: historical collateral performance, borrower profiles and other features relevant to the evaluation of collateral credit quality); yields implied by market prices for similar securities; and, as applicable, house price depreciation/appreciation rates based on macroeconomic forecasts. Significant changes to some of these inputs could have materially changed the fair value of the FG VIEs’ assets and the implied collateral losses within these transactions. In general, the fair value of the FG VIEs’ assets is most sensitive to changes in the projected collateral losses, where an increase in collateral losses typically lead to a potential decrease in the fair value of FG VIEs’ assets, while a decrease in collateral losses typically leads to an increase in the fair value of FG VIEs’ assets.

The prices of the assets and liabilities of the FG VIEs are generally determined with the assistance of an independent third party, based on a discounted cash flow approach. The third party pricing service utilizes an internal model to determine an appropriate yield at which to discount the cash flows of the security, by factoring in collateral types, weighted average lives, and other structural attributes specific to the security being priced. The expected yield is further calibrated by utilizing algorithms designed to aggregate market color, received by the independent third party, on comparable bonds.

The models used to price the FG VIEs’ liabilities (other than the liabilities of the Puerto Rico Trusts) generally apply the same inputs used in determining fair value of FG VIEs’ assets. For those liabilities insured by the Company, the benefit of the Company’s insurance policy guaranteeing the timely payment of debt service is also taken into account. The liabilities of the Puerto Rico Trusts are priced based on the value of the assets in the Puerto Rico Trusts including the value of the U.S. Insurance Subsidiaries’ financial guaranty policies.

Significant changes to any of the inputs described above could materially change the timing of expected losses within an insured transaction. This is a significant factor in determining the implied benefit of the Company’s insurance policy, which guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest for the insured tranches of debt issued by the FG VIEs. In general, extending the timing of expected loss payments by the Company typically leads to a decrease in the value of the Company’s insurance and a decrease in the fair value of the Company’s FG VIEs’ liabilities with recourse, while a shortening of the timing of expected loss payments by the Company typically could lead to an increase in the value of the Company’s insurance and an increase in the fair value of the Company’s FG VIEs’ liabilities with recourse.

Investments held by CIVs which are quoted on a national securities exchange are valued at their last reported sale price on the date of determination. Investments held by CIVs which are traded over-the-counter reflect third-party data generally at the average of dealer offer and bid prices. The valuation methodology may include, but is not limited to: (i) performing price comparisons with similar investments; (ii) obtaining valuation-related information from issuers; (iii) calculating the present value of future cash flows; (iv) assessing other data related to the investment that is an indication of value; (v) obtaining information provided by third parties; and/or (vi) evaluating information provided by the investment manager. Inputs may

The CLOs were collateralized financing entities (CFEs) that were consolidated until July 1, 2023. Loans in CLOs were priced using a loan pricing service which aggregated quotes from loan market participants. The loans were all Level 2 assets, which are more observable than the fair value of the Level 3 debt issued by the consolidated CLOs. As a result, the less observable CLO debt was measured on the basis of the more observable CLO loans. Under the CFE practical expedient guidance, the loans of consolidated CLOs were measured at fair value and the debt of consolidated CLOs were measured as: (1) the sum of (i) the fair value of the financial assets, and (ii) the carrying value of any nonfinancial assets held temporarily; less (2) the sum of (iii) the fair value of any beneficial interests retained by the Company (other than those that represent compensation for services), and (iv) the Company’s carrying value of any beneficial interests that represent compensation for services. The resulting amount was allocated to the individual financial liabilities (other than the underlying financial liabilities to the beneficial interests retained by the Company).

Prior to securitization, when a CLO’s loans were warehoused in an investment vehicle, such vehicle was not considered a CFE. The Company had elected the FVO to measure the loans held, and the debt issued, by CLO warehouses, mitigating the accounting mismatch between such assets and liabilities upon securitization.


	Fair Value Hierarchy
	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
	(in millions)
Assets:
Fixed-maturity securities, available-for-sale:
Obligations of state and political subdivisions	$	—	$	2,655	$	6	$	2,661
U.S. government and agencies	—		60		—		60
Corporate securities	—		2,141		—		2,141
Mortgage-backed securities:
RMBS	—		188		154		342
CMBS	—		151		—		151
Asset-backed securities	—		49		803		852
Non-U.S. government securities	—		100		—		100
Total fixed-maturity securities, available-for-sale	—		5,344		963		6,307
Fixed-maturity securities, trading	—		318		—		318
Short-term investments	1,657		4		—		1,661
Other invested assets (1)	—		—		3		3
FG VIEs’ assets	—		—		174		174
Assets of CIVs:
Equity securities and warrants	—		3		80		83
Structured products	—		59		189		248
Total assets of CIVs	—		62		269		331
Other assets	55		52		16		123
Total assets carried at fair value	$	1,712	$	5,780	$	1,425	$	8,917
Liabilities:
Credit derivative liabilities	$	—	$	—	$	53	$	53
FG VIEs’ liabilities (3)	—		—		554		554
Total liabilities carried at fair value	$	—	$	—	$	607	$	607


	Fair Value Hierarchy
	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
	(in millions)
Assets:
Fixed-maturity securities, available-for-sale:
Obligations of state and political subdivisions	$	—	$	3,347	$	47	$	3,394
U.S. government and agencies	—		111		—		111
Corporate securities	—		2,084		—		2,084
Mortgage-backed securities:
RMBS	—		161		179		340
CMBS	—		271		—		271
Asset-backed securities	—		27		794		821
Non-U.S. government securities	—		98		—		98
Total fixed-maturity securities, available-for-sale	—		6,099		1,020		7,119
Fixed-maturity securities, trading	—		303		—		303
Short-term investments	771		39		—		810
Other invested assets (1)	2		—		5		7
FG VIEs’ assets	—		209		204		413
Assets of CIVs (2):
Fund investments:
Equity securities and warrants	—		5		297		302
Corporate securities	—		—		96		96
Structured products	—		82		46		128
CLOs and CLO warehouse assets:
Loans	—		4,570		—		4,570
Short-term investments	135		—		—		135
Total assets of CIVs	135		4,657		439		5,231
Other assets	54		46		48		148
Total assets carried at fair value	$	962	$	11,353	$	1,716	$	14,031
Liabilities:
Credit derivative liabilities	$	—	$	—	$	163	$	163
FG VIEs’ liabilities (3)	—		—		715		715
Liabilities of CIVs:
CLO obligations of CFEs	—		—		4,090		4,090
Warehouse financing debt	—		277		36		313
Securitized borrowing	—		—		28		28
Total liabilities of CIVs	—		277		4,154		4,431
Other liabilities	—		7		—		7
Total liabilities carried at fair value	$	—	$	284	$	5,032	$	5,316

(2) As of December 31, 2022, excludes $5 million in investments in AssuredIM funds for which the Company recorded a 100% NCI. The consolidation of these funds resulted in a gross up of assets and NCI on the consolidated financial statements; however, it resulted in no economic equity or net income attributable to AGL.


	Fixed-Maturity Securities, Available-for-Sale												Assets of CIVs
	Obligations of State and Political Subdivisions			RMBS			Asset- Backed Securities			FG VIEs’ Assets			Equity Securities and Warrants			Corporate Securities			Structured Products			Other (7)
	(in millions)
Fair value as of December 31, 2022	$	47		$	179		$	794		$	204		$	297		$	96		$	46		$	50
Total pre-tax realized and unrealized gains (losses) recorded in:
Net income (loss)	1		(1)	13		(1)	32		(1)	9		(2)	51		(4)	(3)		(4)	21		(4)	(32)		(3)
Other comprehensive income (loss)	(2)			(8)			(8)			—			—			—			—			—
Purchases	—			—			23			—			42			6			5			—
Sales	—			—			(2)			—			(91)			(15)			(48)			—
Settlements	(3)			(30)			(36)			(33)			—			—			—			(4)
Deconsolidations	—			—			—			(7)			(219)			(84)			165			—
Transfers into Level 3	3			—			—			1			—			—			—			—
Transfers out of Level 3	(40)			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Fair value as of December 31, 2023	$	6		$	154		$	803		$	174		$	80		$	—		$	189		$	14
Change in unrealized gains (losses) related to financial instruments held as of December 31, 2023 included in:
Earnings										$	4	(2)	$	11	(4)	$	—	(4)	$	10	(4)	$	(32)	(3)
OCI	$	—		$	(7)		$	9														$	—


	Credit Derivative Liability, net (5)			FG VIEs’ Liabilities (8)			Liabilities of CIVs
	(in millions)
Fair value as of December 31, 2022	$	(162)		$	(715)		$	(4,154)
Total pre-tax realized and unrealized gains (losses) recorded in:
Net income (loss)	114		(6)	2		(2)	(45)		(4)
Other comprehensive income (loss)	—			3			(13)
Issuances	(1)			—			—
Settlements	(1)			149			13
Deconsolidations	—			7			4,199
Fair value as of December 31, 2023	$	(50)		$	(554)		$	—
Change in unrealized gains (losses) related to financial instruments held as of December 31, 2023 included in:
Earnings	$	112	(6)	$	—		$	—
OCI				$	3		$	—


	Fixed-Maturity Securities, Available-For-Sale												Assets of CIVs
	Obligations of State and Political Subdivisions			RMBS			Asset- Backed Securities			FG VIEs’ Assets			Equity Securities and Warrants			Corporate Securities			Structured Products			Other (7)
	(in millions)
Fair value as of December 31, 2021	$	72		$	216		$	863		$	260		$	239		$	91		$	—		$	27
Total pre-tax realized and unrealized gains (losses) recorded in:
Net income (loss)	1		(1)	16		(1)	5		(1)	(3)		(2)	1		(4)	2		(4)	(5)		(4)	24		(3)
Other comprehensive income (loss)	(12)			(36)			(47)			—			—			—			—			(1)
Purchases	—			22			43			—			73			16			52			—
Sales	—			—			(13)			—			(16)			(13)			(21)			—
Settlements	(14)			(39)			(57)			(60)			—			—			—			—
Consolidation	—			—			—			22			—			—			—			—
Deconsolidations	—			—			—			(15)			—			—			20			—
Fair value as of December 31, 2022	$	47		$	179		$	794		$	204		$	297		$	96		$	46		$	50
Change in unrealized gains (losses) related to financial instruments held as of December 31, 2022 included in:
Earnings										$	(3)	(2)	$	(8)	(4)	$	1	(4)	$	(4)	(4)	$	24	(3)
OCI	$	(12)		$	(32)		$	(45)														$	(1)


	Credit Derivative Liability, net (5)			FG VIEs’ Liabilities (8)			Liabilities of CIVs
	(in millions)
Fair value as of December 31, 2021	$	(154)		$	(289)		$	(3,705)
Total pre-tax realized and unrealized gains (losses) recorded in:
Net income (loss)	(11)		(6)	34		(2)	178		(4)
Other comprehensive income (loss)	—			(3)			42
Issuances	—			—			(1,421)
Sales	—			—			2
Settlements	3			99			402
Consolidations	—			(571)			(26)
Deconsolidations	—			15			374
Fair value as of December 31, 2022	$	(162)		$	(715)		$	(4,154)
Change in unrealized gains (losses) related to financial instruments held as of December 31, 2022 included in:
Earnings	$	(11)	(6)	$	59	(2)	$	217	(4)
OCI				$	(3)		$	42

__________________


Financial Instrument Description	Fair Value Assets (Liabilities) (in millions)		Significant Unobservable Inputs	Range				Weighted Average (4)
Investments (2):
Fixed-maturity securities, available-for-sale (1):
Obligations of state and political subdivisions	$	6	Yield	7.4	%	-	22.5%	7.8%
RMBS	154		CPR	0.1	%	-	15.0%	3.4%
			CDR	1.5	%	-	18.8%	5.6%
			Loss severity	50.0	%	-	125.0%	82.6%
			Yield	7.5	%	-	11.3%	8.9%
Asset-backed securities:
CLOs	450		Discount margin	1.1	%	-	9.5%	2.6%
Others	353		Yield	6.2	%	-	11.7%	7.8%
FG VIEs’ assets (1)	174		CPR	0.2	%	-	21.4%	7.8%
			CDR	1.3	%	-	41.0%	10.4%
			Loss severity	45.0	%	-	100.0%	82.9%
			Yield	5.5	%	-	10.9%	9.4%
Assets of CIVs (3):
Equity securities and warrants	80		Discount rate	20.9%
			Market multiple-price to book	1.10x
			Market multiple-price to earnings	5.50x
			Terminal growth rate	4.0%
			Exit multiple-price to book	1.10x
			Exit multiple-price to earnings	5.50x
Structured products	189		Yield	14.7	%	-	21.4%	18.0%
Other assets (1)	13		Implied Yield	7.8	%	-	8.4%	8.1%
			Term (years)	10 years
Credit derivative liabilities, net (1)	(50)		Hedge cost (in basis points)( bps)	10.2	%	-	26.5%	15.8%
			Bank profit (in bps)	105.6		-	302.6	158.6
			Internal floor (in bps)	10.0
			Internal credit rating	CCC		-	AAA	A
FG VIEs’ liabilities (1)	(554)		CPR	0.2	%	-	21.4%	7.8%
			CDR	1.3	%	-	41.0%	10.4%
			Loss severity	45.0	%	-	100.0%	82.9%
			Yield	5.0	%	-	10.7%	5.8%


Financial Instrument Description	Fair Value Assets (Liabilities) (in millions)		Significant Unobservable Inputs	Range				Weighted Average (4)
Investments (2):
Fixed-maturity securities, available-for-sale (1):
Obligations of state and political subdivisions	$	47	Yield	7.4	%	-	13.5%	9.4%
RMBS	179		CPR	3.8	%	-	16.1%	8.2%
			CDR	1.5	%	-	12.0%	5.9%
			Loss severity	50.0	%	-	125.0%	82.5%
			Yield	7.5	%	-	11.3%	9.0%
Asset-backed securities:
CLOs	428		Discount margin	1.8	%	-	4.1%	3.0%
Others	366		Yield	7.4	%	-	12.9%	11.4%
FG VIEs’ assets (1)	204		CPR	0.9	%	-	21.9%	12.9%
			CDR	1.3	%	-	41.0%	7.6%
			Loss severity	45.0	%	-	100.0%	81.0%
			Yield	6.6	%	-	10.9%	7.5%
Assets of CIVs (3):
Equity securities and warrants	297		Yield	10.0%
			Discount rate	19.8	%	-	25.1%	22.7%
			Market multiple-enterprise value/revenue	1.05x		-	1.10x	1.08x
			Market multiple-enterprise value/EBITDA (6)	2.50x		-	11.00x	10.25x
			Market multiple-price to book	1.15x
			Market multiple-price to earnings	4.50x
			Terminal growth rate	3.0%		-	4.0%	3.5%
			Exit multiple -EBITDA	8.00x		-	12.00x	10.53x
			Exit multiple-price to book	1.30x
			Exit multiple-price to earnings	5.50x
			Cost	1.00x
Corporate securities	96		Discount rate	20.8	%	-	23.8%	21.7%
			Yield	16.3%
			Exit multiple-EBITDA	8.00x
			Cost	1.00x
			Market multiple-enterprise value/EBITDA	2.50x		-	2.75x	2.63x
Structured products	46		Yield	12.8%		-	37.1%	18.9%
Other assets (1)	47		Implied Yield	7.7	%	-	8.4%	8.1%
			Term (years)	10 years
Credit derivative liabilities, net (1)	(162)		Hedge cost (in bps)	11.5	%	-	25.2%	15.7%
			Bank profit (in bps)	51.0		-	270.5	109.4
			Internal credit rating	AAA		-	CCC	AA


Financial Instrument Description	Fair Value Assets (Liabilities) (in millions)	Significant Unobservable Inputs	Range				Weighted Average (4)
FG VIEs’ liabilities (1)	(715)	CPR	0.9	%	-	21.9%	6.3%
		CDR	1.3	%	-	41.0%	3.7%
		Loss severity	45.0	%	-	100.0%	39.9%
		Yield	4.8	%	-	10.9%	5.9%
Liabilities of CIVs (1):
CLO obligations of CFEs (5)	(4,090)	Yield	3.0	%	-	27.4%	5.5%
Warehouse financing debt	(36)	Yield	11.7	%	-	16.9%	12.9%
Securitized borrowing	(28)	Discount rate	20.9%
		Terminal growth rate	3.0%
		Exit multiple-EBITDA	11.00x
		Market multiple-enterprise value/EBITDA	10.00x		-	11.00x	10.50x

Fair value is based on management’s estimate of what a similarly rated financial guaranty insurance company would demand to acquire the Company’s in-force book of financial guaranty insurance business. It is based on a variety of factors that include pricing assumptions management has observed for portfolio transfers, commutations, and acquisitions that have occurred in the financial guaranty market, and also includes adjustments for stressed losses, ceding commissions and return on capital. The Company classified the fair value of financial guaranty insurance contracts as Level 3.

Long-term debt issued by the U.S. Holding Companies is valued by broker-dealers using independent third-party pricing sources and standard market conventions and classified as Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy. The market conventions utilize market quotations, market transactions for the Company’s comparable instruments, and to a lesser extent, similar instruments in the broader insurance industry.

Cash equivalents are recorded at cost which approximates fair value. Due from/to brokers and counterparties primarily consists of cash, margin deposits, cash collateral with the clearing brokers and various counterparties and the net amounts receivable/payable for securities transactions that had not settled at the balance sheet date. Due from/to brokers and counterparties represents balances on a net-by counterparty basis on the consolidated balance sheets where a contractual right of offset exists under an enforceable netting arrangement. The cash at brokers is partially related to derivative contracts; its use is therefore restricted until the derivative contracts are closed. The carrying value approximates fair value of these items and are considered Level 1 in the fair value hierarchy.

As of December 31, 2022, $35 million of AssuredIM’s obligation under a master repurchase agreement to finance AssuredIM’s purchase of 5% of the senior and equity notes issued by certain consolidated European CLOs, which was required to comply with its European risk retention obligations, were included in “other liabilities.”


	As of December 31, 2023				As of December 31, 2022
	Carrying Amount		Estimated Fair Value		Carrying Amount		Estimated Fair Value
	(in millions)
Assets (liabilities):
Assets of CIVs	$	19	$	19	$	46	$	46
Other assets (including other invested assets)	79		80		92		93
Financial guaranty insurance contracts (1)	(2,244)		(1,811)		(2,335)		(986)
Long-term debt	(1,694)		(1,593)		(1,675)		(1,477)
Liabilities of CIVs	—		—		(170)		(170)
Other liabilities	(15)		(15)		(43)		(43)