XML 20 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.3.0.15

Fair Value Measurements

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Fair Value Measurements [Abstract]

Fair Value Measurements

(11) Fair Value Measurements

ASC Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and disclosures about fair value measurements.

The carrying amount and estimated fair value of financial instruments are presented below:

		September 30, 2011								December 31, 2010
		Carrying Amount				Estimated Fair Value				Carrying Amount				Estimated Fair Value
Financial assets:
Fixed income securities(1)		$	5,976,941			$	5,976,941			$	5,738,125			$	5,738,125
Fixed income securities pledged as collateral(1)			262,032				262,032				123,519				123,519
Short-term investments			824,126				824,126				991,567				991,567
Other investments			100				100				100				100
Cash and cash equivalents			21,316				21,316				9,497				9,497
Restricted cash			2,500				2,500				2,500				2,500
Loans			20,035				18,106				20,167				21,706
Derivative assets			205,215				205,215				290,299				290,299
Other assets			17,332				17,332				17,909				17,909
Variable interest entity assets:
Fixed income securities			2,106,447				2,106,447				1,904,361				1,904,361
Restricted cash			42,813				42,813				2,098				2,098
Loans			14,255,451				14,233,263				16,005,066				15,990,120
Derivative assets			—				—				4,511				4,511
Financial liabilities:
Obligations under investment, repurchase and payment agreements		$	590,244			$	598,072			$	805,632			$	811,263
Liabilities subject to compromise			1,622,189				145,742				1,622,189				115,201
Long-term debt			220,440				558,356				208,260				270,600
Derivative liabilities			456,522				456,522				348,791				348,791
Liability for net financial guarantees written			6,786,540				2,372,788				5,977,077				1,638,181
Variable interest entity liabilities:
Long-term debt			14,638,183				14,602,899				16,101,026				16,073,110
Derivative liabilities			1,816,627				1,816,627				1,580,120				1,580,120

(1) See breakout of fixed income securities in Note 9.

Fair value Hierarchy:

ASC Topic 820 specifies a fair value hierarchy 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-based market assumptions. In accordance with ASC Topic 820, the fair value hierarchy prioritizes model inputs into three broad levels as follows:

• Level 1		–		Quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets. Assets and liabilities classified as Level 1 include US Treasury securities, exchange traded futures contracts, variable rate demand obligations, money market funds and mutual funds.
• Level 2		–		Quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active; and model-derived valuations in which all significant inputs and significant value drivers are observable in active markets. Assets and liabilities classified as Level 2 generally include direct investments in fixed income securities representing municipal, asset-backed and corporate obligations, financial services derivatives (including certain interest rate and currency swap derivatives), certain credit derivative contracts and most long-term debt of variable interest entities consolidated under ASC Topic 810.

• Level 3 – Model derived valuations in which one or more significant inputs or significant value drivers are unobservable. This hierarchy requires the use of observable market data when available. Assets and liabilities classified as Level 3 include most credit derivative contracts written as part of the financial guarantee business, certain financial services interest rate swap contracts which are not referenced to commonly quoted interest rates, call options on long-term debt and certain investments in fixed income securities. Additionally, Level 3 assets and liabilities generally include fixed income securities and loan receivables, as well as certain long-term debt of variable interest entities consolidated under ASC Topic 810.

The following table sets forth Ambac's financial assets and liabilities that were accounted for at fair value as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 by level within the fair value hierarchy. As required by ASC Topic 820, financial assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

		Level 1				Level 2				Level 3				Total
September 30, 2011
Financial assets:
Fixed income securities:
Municipal obligations		$	—			$	1,998,339			$	—			$	1,998,339
Corporate obligations			—				1,109,549				8,149				1,117,698
Foreign obligations			—				95,457				—				95,457
U.S. government obligations			120,015				—				—				120,015
U.S. agency obligations			—				86,837				974				87,811
Residential mortgage-backed securities			—				1,511,271				—				1,511,271
Collateralized debt obligations			—				34,323				12,664				46,987
Other asset-backed securities			—				923,797				75,566				999,363
Short term investments			824,126				—				—				824,126
Fixed income securities, pledged as collateral:
U.S. government obligations			256,703				—				—				256,703
Residential mortgage-backed securities			—				5,329				—				5,329
Cash and cash equivalents			21,316				—				—				21,316
Restricted cash			2,500				—				—				2,500
Derivative assets:
Interest rate swaps—asset position			—				257,827				162,649				420,476
Interest rate swaps—liability position			—				(53	)			(229,068	)			(229,121	)
Future contracts			—				—				—				—
Call options on long-term debt			—				—				13,860				13,860
Other assets			—				—				17,332				17,332
Variable interest entity assets:
Fixed income securities:
Corporate obligations			—				—				2,106,447				2,106,447
Restricted cash			42,813				—				—				42,813
Loans			—				—				14,046,967				14,046,967
Total financial assets		$	1,267,473			$	6,022,676			$	16,215,540			$	23,505,689
Financial liabilities:
Derivative liabilities:
Credit derivatives		$	—			$	—			$	215,170			$	215,170
Interest rate swaps—asset position			—				—				(27,272	)			(27,272	)
Interest rate swaps— liability position			—				14,152				249,517				263,669
Futures contracts			1,134				—				—				1,134
Currency swaps			—				3,499				—				3,499
Other contracts			—				323				—				323
Variable interest entity liabilities:
Long-term debt			—				12,262,818				2,155,561				14,418,379
Derivative liabilities:
Interest rate swaps—asset position			—				—				—				—
Interest rate swaps—liability position			—				1,746,015				—				1,746,015
Currency swaps—asset position			—				(26,055	)			—				(26,055	)
Currency swaps—liability position			—				96,667				—				96,667
Total financial liabilities		$	1,134			$	14,097,419			$	2,592,976			$	16,691,529

December 31, 2010
Financial assets:
Fixed income securities:
Municipal obligations		$	—			$	1,921,336			$	—			$	1,921,336
Corporate obligations			—				909,839				8,069				917,908
Foreign obligations			—				118,455				—				118,455
U.S. government obligations			156,873				—				—				156,873
U.S. agency obligations			—				87,097				1,197				88,294
Residential mortgage-backed securities			—				1,498,692				—				1,498,692
Collateralized debt obligations			—				1,823				30,433				32,256
Other asset-backed securities			—				844,838				159,473				1,004,311
Short term investments			991,567				—				—				991,567
Fixed income securities, pledged as collateral:
U.S. government obligations			115,402				—				—				115,402
Residential mortgage-backed securities			—				8,117				—				8,117
Cash and cash equivalents			9,497				—				—				9,497
Restricted cash			2,500				—				—				2,500
Derivative assets:
Interest rate swaps—asset position			—				142,842				265,457				408,299
Interest rate swaps—liability position			—				(105	)			(129,080	)			(129,185	)
Future contracts			11,185				—				—				11,185
Other assets			—				—				17,909				17,909
Variable interest entity assets:
Fixed income securities:
Corporate obligations			—				—				1,904,361				1,904,361
Restricted cash			2,098				—				—				2,098
Loans			—				—				15,800,918				15,800,918
Derivative assets:
Credit derivatives			—				—				4,511				4,511
Total financial assets		$	1,289,122			$	5,532,934			$	18,063,248			$	24,885,304
Financial liabilities:
Derivative liabilities:
Credit derivatives		$	—			$	—			$	221,684			$	221,684
Interest rate swaps—asset position			—				—				(4,756	)			(4,756	)
Interest rate swaps—liability position			—				9,550				115,382				124,932
Futures contracts			—				—				—				—
Currency swaps			—				6,699				—				6,699
Other contracts			—				232				—				232
Variable interest entity liabilities:
Long-term debt			—				14,029,345				1,856,366				15,885,711
Derivative liabilities:
Interest rate swaps—asset position			—				(2,203	)			—				(2,203	)
Interest rate swaps—liability position			—				1,503,863				—				1,503,863
Currency swaps—asset position			—				(26,577	)			—				(26,577	)
Currency swaps—liability position			—				105,037				—				105,037
Total financial liabilities		$	—			$	15,625,946			$	2,188,676			$	17,814,622

Determination of Fair Value:

When available, the Company generally uses quoted market prices to determine fair value, and classifies such items within Level 1. Because many fixed income securities do not trade on a daily basis, pricing sources apply available information through processes such as matrix pricing to calculate fair value. In those cases the items are classified within Level 2. If quoted market prices are not available, fair value is based upon models that use, where possible, current market-based or independently-sourced market parameters. Items valued using valuation models are classified according to the lowest level input or value driver that is significant to the valuation. Thus, an item may be classified in Level 3 even though there may be significant inputs that are readily observable.

The determination of fair value for financial instruments categorized in Level 2 or 3 involves significant judgment due to the complexity of factors contributing to the valuation. Market disruptions make valuation even more difficult and subjective. Third-party sources from which we obtain independent market quotes also use assumptions, judgments and estimates in determining financial instrument values and different third parties may use different methodologies or provide different prices for securities. We believe the potential for differences in third-party pricing levels is particularly significant with respect to residential mortgage-backed and certain other asset-backed securities held in our investment portfolio and referenced in our credit derivative portfolio, due to the low levels of recent trading activity for such securities. In addition, the use of internal valuation models may require assumptions about hypothetical or inactive markets. As a result of these factors, the actual trade value of a financial instrument in the market, or exit value of a financial instrument position by Ambac, may be significantly different from its recorded fair value.

Ambac's financial instruments carried at fair value are mainly comprised of investments in fixed income securities, derivative instruments, call options on certain long-term debt, most variable interest entity assets and liabilities and equity interests in Ambac sponsored special purpose entities.

We reflect Ambac's own creditworthiness in the fair value of financial liability by including a credit valuation adjustment ("CVA") in the determination of fair value. A decline in Ambac's creditworthiness as perceived by market participants will generally result in a higher CVA, thereby lowering the fair value of Ambac's financial liabilities as reported.

Fixed Income Securities:

The fair values of fixed income investment securities held by Ambac and its operating subsidiaries are based primarily on market prices received from dealer quotes or alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency. Such quotes generally consider a variety of factors, including recent trades of the same and similar securities. For those fixed income investments where quotes were not available, fair values are based on internal valuation models. Key inputs to the internal valuation models include maturity date, coupon and yield curves for asset-type and credit rating characteristics that closely match those characteristics of the specific investment securities being valued. At September 30, 2011, approximately 8%, 91%, and 1% of the investment portfolio (excluding variable interest entity investments) was valued using dealer quotes, alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency, and internal valuation models, respectively. At December 31, 2010, approximately 7%, 90%, and 3% of the investment portfolio (excluding variable interest entity investments) was valued using dealer quotes, alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency, and internal valuation models, respectively.

Third party quotes represent the only input to the reported fair value of Level 2 fixed income securities. Fixed income securities are classified as Level 3 when the fair value is internally modeled. Information about the valuation inputs for fixed income securities classified as Level 3 is included below:

Corporate obligations: These securities represent interest only strips of investment grade corporate obligations. Fair value was calculated using a discounted cash flow approach with the discount rate determined from the yields of corporate bonds from the same issuers. Significant inputs for the valuation at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 include the following weighted averages:

September 30, 2011

a. Coupon rate: 0.60%

b. Maturity: 21.70 years

c. Yield: 6.65%

December 31, 2010

a. Coupon rate: 0.60%

b. Maturity: 22.44 years

c. Yield: 6.50%

U.S. agency obligations: These notes are secured by separate lease rental agreements with the U.S. Government acting through the General Services Administration. Fair value was calculated using a discounted cash flow approach with the yield based on comparable U.S. agency securities. Significant inputs for the valuation at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 include the following weighted averages:

September 30, 2011

a. Coupon rate: 6.88%

b. Maturity: 0.13 years

c. Yield: 2.32%

December 31, 2010

a. Coupon rate: 6.88%

b. Maturity: 0.37 years

c. Yield: 3.11%

Collateralized debt obligations ("CDO"): Securities are floating rate senior notes with the underlying securities of the CDO consist of subordinated bank perpetual preferred securities. Fair value was calculated using a discounted cash flow approach with expected future cash flows discounted using a yield curve consistent with the security type and rating. Significant inputs for the valuation at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 include the following weighted averages:

September 30, 2011

a. Coupon rate: 0.81%

b. Maturity: 1.73 years

c. Yield: 12.17%

December 31, 2010

a. Coupon rate: 0.84%

b. Maturity: 14.67 years

c. Yield: 10.33%

Asset-backed securities: These securities are floating rate investment grade notes collateralized by various asset types. Fair value was calculated using a discounted cash flow approach with expected future cash flows discounted using a yield curve consistent with the security type and rating. Significant inputs for the valuation at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 include the following weighted averages:

September 30, 2011

a. Coupon rate: 1.21%

b. Maturity: 3.25 years

c. Yield: 4.50%

December 31, 2010

a. Coupon rate: 0.94%

b. Maturity: 6.58 years

c. Yield: 4.31%

Derivative Instruments:

Ambac's derivative instruments comprise interest rate, currency, and credit default swaps, exchange traded futures contracts and call options to repurchase Ambac Assurance surplus notes. Fair value is determined based upon market quotes from independent sources, when available. When independent quotes are not available, fair value is determined using valuation models. These valuation models require market-driven inputs, including contractual terms, credit spreads and ratings on underlying referenced obligations, yield curves and tax-exempt interest ratios. The valuation of certain interest rate and currency swaps as well as all credit derivative contracts also require the use of data inputs and assumptions that are determined by management and are not readily observable in the market. Under ASC Topic 820, Ambac is required to consider its own credit risk when measuring the fair value of derivative and other liabilities. The fair value of net credit derivative liabilities was reduced by $646,139 at September 30, 2011, and $886,735 at December 31, 2010, as a result of incorporating a CVA on Ambac Assurance into the valuation model for these transactions. Interest rate swaps, currency swaps or other derivative liabilities may also require an adjustment to fair value to reflect Ambac Assurance's credit risk. Factors considered in estimating the amount of any Ambac CVA on such contracts include collateral posting provisions, right of set-off with the counterparty, the period of time remaining on the derivatives and the pricing of recent terminations and amendments. Derivative liabilities were reduced by $161,623 at September 30, 2011, and $68,772 at December 31, 2010, as a result of Ambac CVA adjustments to derivative contracts other than credit derivatives.

As described further below, certain valuation models require other inputs that are not readily observable in the market. The selection of a model to value a derivative depends on the contractual terms of, and specific risks inherent in the instrument as well as the availability of pricing information in the market.

For derivatives that are less complex and trade in liquid markets or may be valued primarily by reference to interest rates and yield curves that are observable and regularly quoted, such as interest rate and currency swaps, we utilize vendor-developed models. These models provide the net present value of the derivatives based on contractual terms and observable market data. Downgrades of Ambac Assurance, as guarantor of the financial services derivatives, beginning 2008 have increased collateral requirements and triggered termination provisions in certain interest rate and currency swaps. Increased termination activity since the initial rating downgrades of Ambac Assurance has provided additional information about the current replacement and/or exit value of our financial services derivatives, which may not be fully reflected in our vendor-models but has been incorporated into the fair value of these derivatives at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. These fair value adjustments are applied to individual groups of derivatives based on common attributes such as counterparty type and credit condition, term to maturity, derivative type and net present value. Generally, the need for counterparty (or Ambac) CVAs is mitigated by the existence of collateral posting agreements under which adequate collateral has been posted. Derivative contracts entered into with financial guarantee customers are not typically subject to collateral posting agreements. Counterparty credit risk related to such customer derivative assets is included in our fair value adjustments.

For derivatives that do not trade, or trade in less liquid markets such as credit derivatives, a proprietary model is used because such instruments tend to be unique, contain complex or heavily modified and negotiated terms, and pricing information is not readily available in the market. Derivative fair value models and the related assumptions are continuously re-evaluated by management and enhanced, as appropriate, based on improvements in modeling techniques. As described further below, beginning with the quarter ended March 31, 2011, measurement of the Ambac CVA on credit derivatives incorporated newly available market information. Ambac has not made any other significant changes to its modeling techniques for the periods presented.

Credit Derivatives ("CDS"):

Fair value of Ambac's CDS is determined using internal valuation models and represents the net present value of the difference between the fees Ambac originally charged for the credit protection and our estimate of what a financial guarantor of comparable credit worthiness would hypothetically charge to provide the same protection at the balance sheet date. Ambac competed in the financial guarantee market, which differs from the credit markets where Ambac-insured obligations may trade. As a financial guarantor, Ambac assumes only credit risk; we do not assume other risks and costs inherent in direct ownership of the underlying reference securities. Additionally, as a result of having the ability to influence our CDS counterparty in certain investor decisions, financial guarantors generally have the ability to actively remediate the credit, potentially reducing the loss given a default. Financial guarantee contracts, including CDS, issued by Ambac and its competitors are typically priced to capture some portion of the spread that would be observed in the capital markets for the underlying (insured) obligation, with minimum pricing constrained by objective estimates of expected loss and financial guarantor required rates of return. Such pricing was well established by historical financial guarantee fees relative to capital market spreads as observed and executed in competitive markets, including in financial guarantee reinsurance and secondary market transactions. Because of this relationship and in the absence of severe credit deterioration, changes in the fair value of our credit default swaps (both unrealized gains and losses) will generally be less than changes in the fair value of the underlying reference obligations.

Key variables used in our valuation of substantially all of our credit derivatives include the balance of unpaid notional, expected term, fair values of the underlying reference obligations, reference obligation credit ratings, assumptions about current financial guarantee CDS fee levels relative to reference obligation spreads and the CVA applied against Ambac Assurance liabilities by market participants. Notional balances, expected remaining term and reference obligation credit ratings are monitored and determined by Ambac's Risk Group. Fair values of the underlying reference obligations are obtained from broker quotes when available, or are derived from other market indications such as new issuance spreads and quoted values for similar transactions. Implicit in the fair values we obtain on the underlying reference obligations are the market's assumptions about default probabilities, default timing, correlation, recovery rates and collateral values.

Broker quotes on the reference obligations named in our CDS contracts represent an input to determine the estimated fair value of the CDS contract. Broker quotes are indicative values for the reference obligation and generally do not represent a bid or doing-business quote for the reference instrument. Such quotes follow methodologies that are generally consistent with those used to value similar assets on the quote providers' own books. Methodologies may differ among brokers but are understood to reflect observable trading activity (when available) and modeling that relies on empirical data and reasonable assumptions. For certain CDS contracts referencing unsecuritized pools of assets, we will obtain counterparty quotes on the credit derivative itself. Such quotes are adjusted to reflect Ambac's own credit risk when determining the fair value of credit derivative liabilities. Third party reference obligation values or specific credit derivative quotes were used in the determination of CDS fair values related to transactions representing 84% of CDS gross par outstanding and 89% of the CDS derivative liability as of September 30, 2011.

When broker quotes for reference obligations are not available, reference obligation prices used in the valuation model are estimated internally based on averages of the quoted prices for other transactions of the same bond type and Ambac rating as well as changes in published credit spreads for securities with similar collateral and ratings characteristics. When price quotes of a similar bond type vary significantly or the number of similar transactions is small, as had been observed with CDO of ABS transactions, management will consider additional factors, such as specific collateral composition and performance and contractual subordination, to identify similar transactions. Reference obligation prices derived internally as described above were used in the determination of CDS fair values related to transactions representing 16% of CDS gross par outstanding and 11% of the CDS derivative liability as of September 30, 2011.

Ambac's CDS fair value calculations are adjusted for increases in our estimates of expected loss on the reference obligations and observable changes in financial guarantee market pricing. If no adjustment is considered necessary, Ambac maintains the same percentage of the credit spread (over LIBOR) demanded in the market for the reference obligation as existed at the inception of the CDS. Therefore, absent changes in expected loss on the reference obligations or financial guarantee CDS market pricing, the financial guarantee CDS fee used for a particular contract in Ambac's fair value calculations represent a consistent percentage, period to period, of the credit spread determinable from the reference obligation value at the balance sheet date. This results in a CDS fair value balance that fluctuates in proportion with the reference obligation value.

The amount of expected loss on a reference obligation is a function of the probability that the obligation will default and severity of loss in the event of default. Ambac's CDS transactions were all originally underwritten with extremely low expected losses. Both the reference obligation spreads and Ambac's CDS fees at the inception of these transactions reflect these low expected losses. When reference obligations experience credit deterioration, there is an increase in the probability of default on the obligation and, therefore, an increase in expected loss. Ambac reflects the effects of changes in expected loss on the fair value of its CDS contracts by increasing the percentage of the reference obligation spread (over LIBOR) which would be captured as a CDS fee ("relative change ratio") at the valuation date, resulting in a higher mark-to-market loss on our CDS relative to any price decline on the reference obligation. The fundamental assumption is that financial guarantee CDS fees will increase relative to reference obligation spreads as the underlying credit quality of the reference obligation deteriorates and approaches payment default. For example, if the credit spread of an underlying reference obligation was 80 basis points at the inception of a transaction and Ambac received a 20 basis point fee for issuing a CDS on that obligation, the relative change ratio, which represents the CDS fee to cash market spread Ambac would utilize in its valuation calculation, would be 25%. If the reference obligation spread increased to 100 basis points in the current reporting period, absent any observable changes in financial guarantee CDS market pricing or credit deterioration, Ambac's current period CDS fee would be computed by multiplying the current reference obligation spread of 100 basis points by the relative change ratio of 25%, resulting in a 25 basis point fee. Thus, the model indicates we would need to receive an additional 5 basis points (25 basis points currently less the 20 basis points contractually received) for issuing a CDS in the current reporting period for this reference obligation. We would then discount the product of the notional amount of the CDS and the 5 basis point hypothetical CDS fee increase, over the weighted average life of the reference obligation to compute the current period mark-to-market loss. Using the same example, if the reference obligation spread increased to 100 basis points and there was credit deterioration as evidenced by an internal rating downgrade which increased the relative change ratio from 25% to 35%, we would estimate a 15 basis point hypothetical CDS fee increase in our model (35% of 100 basis points reference obligation spread, or 35 basis points currently, less the 20 basis points contractually received). Therefore, we would record a higher mark-to-market loss based on the computations described above absent any observable changes in financial guarantee CDS market pricing.

We do not adjust the relative change ratio until an actual internal rating downgrade has occurred unless we observe new pricing on financial guarantee CDS contracts. However, because we have active surveillance procedures in place for our entire CDS portfolio, particularly for transactions at or near a below investment grade threshold, we believe it is unlikely that an internal downgrade would lag the actual credit deterioration of a transaction for any meaningful time period. The factors used to increase the relative change ratio are based on rating agency probability of default percentages determined by management to be appropriate for the relevant bond type. That is, the probability of default associated with the respective tenor and internal rating of each CDS transaction is utilized in the computation of the relative change ratio in our CDS valuation model. The new relative change ratio in the event of an internal downgrade of the reference obligation is calculated as the weighted average of: (i) a given transaction's inception relative change ratio and (ii) a ratio of 100%. The weight given to the inception relative change ratio is 100% minus the probability of default (i.e. the probability of non-default) and the weight given to using a 100% relative change ratio is the probability of default. For example, assume a transaction having an inception relative change ratio of 33% is downgraded to B- during the period, at which time it has an estimated remaining life of 8 years. If the estimated probability of default for an 8 year, B- rated credit of this type is 60% then the revised relative change ratio will be 73.2%. The revised relative change ratio can be calculated as 33% x (100%-60%) + 100% x 60% = 73.2%.

As noted above, reference obligation spreads incorporate market perceptions of default probability and loss severity, as well as liquidity risk and other factors. Loss severities are generally correlated to default probabilities during periods of economic stress. By increasing the relative change ratio in our calculations proportionally to default probabilities, Ambac incorporates into its CDS fair value the higher expected loss on the reference obligation (probability of default x loss severity), by increasing the portion of reference obligation spread that should be paid to the CDS provider.

Ambac incorporates its own credit risk into the valuation of its CDS liabilities by applying a CVA to the calculations described above. Through March 31, 2010, the Ambac CVA was calculated by adjusting the discount rate used in the CDS present value calculations. Specifically, the discount rate used for the present value calculations described above was LIBOR plus Ambac's credit spread as observed from quotes of the cost to purchase credit protection on Ambac Assurance. By incorporating the market cost of credit protection on Ambac into the discount rate, the fair value of Ambac's liability (or the asset from the perspective of the credit protection buyer) will be decreased by an amount that reflects the market's pricing of the risk that Ambac will not have the ability to pay. The widening of Ambac's own credit spread cannot result in our recognition of an asset on a CDS contract. Under our methodology, determination of the CDS fair value requires estimating hypothetical financial guarantee CDS fees for a given credit at the valuation date and estimating the present value of those fees. Our approach begins with pricing in the risk of default of the reference obligation using that obligation's credit spread. The widening of the reference obligation spread results in a mark-to-market loss to Ambac, as the credit protection seller, and a gain to the credit protection buyer because the cost of credit protection on the reference obligation (ignoring CDS counterparty credit risk) will be greater than the amount of the actual contractual CDS fees. Late in March 2010, Ambac Assurance credit default swap pricing became unobservable following ISDA's declaration of an event of default on such contracts. Therefore the Ambac CVA subsequent to March 31, 2010 could not utilize the same market inputs as had been used previously. Since June 30, 2010, the Ambac CVA has been a percentage applied to the estimated CDS liability fair value calculated as described above, but using only LIBOR in the present value calculations. The Ambac CVA was estimated using relevant data points, including the final settlement value of Ambac Assurance credit default swaps (determined through auction in June 2010), updated over time based on changes in quoted prices of securities guaranteed by Ambac Assurance which indicate the value placed by market participants on Ambac Assurance's insurance obligations, and (beginning March 31, 2011) the fair value of Ambac Assurance surplus notes. The resulting Ambac CVA percentage used in the valuation of CDS liabilities was 75% and 80% as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. In instances where narrower reference obligation spreads result in a CDS asset to Ambac, or when Ambac has a CDS asset arising from reinsured CDS exposure, those hypothetical future CDS fees are discounted at a rate which does not incorporate Ambac's own spread but rather incorporates our counterparty's credit spread (i.e. the discount rate used to value purchased credit derivative protection is LIBOR plus the current credit spread of the protection provider).

In addition, when there are sufficient numbers of new observable transactions to indicate a general change in market pricing trends for CDS on a given bond type, management will adjust its assumptions about the percentage of reference obligation spreads captured as CDS fees to match the current market. No such adjustments were made during 2011 or 2010. Ambac is not transacting CDS business currently and other guarantors have stated they have exited this product. Although relevant new transactions are not occurring in the financial guarantee marketplace, we have entered into negotiated settlements of CDS contracts. These settlements have primarily related to our written CDS on CDO of ABS transactions, all of which were terminated prior to June 30, 2010. Because of the significant differences between the CDO of ABS transactions compared to the other CDS remaining in the portfolio, including the generally lower credit quality, we do not believe the settlements of these transactions provided information that warrants adjustment to the fair value model of CDS.

Key variables which impact the "Realized gains and losses and other settlements" component of "Net change in fair value of credit derivatives" in the Consolidated Statements of Operations are the most readily observable variables since they are based solely on the CDS contractual terms and cash settlements. Those variables include (i) premiums received and accrued on written CDS contracts, (ii) premiums paid or accrued on purchased contracts, (iii) losses paid and payable on written credit derivative contracts and (iv) paid losses recovered and recoverable on purchased credit derivative contracts for the appropriate accounting period. Losses paid and payable and losses recovered and receivable reported in "Realized gains and losses and other settlements" include those arising after a credit event that requires a payment under the contract terms has occurred or in connection with a negotiated termination of a contract. The remaining key variables described above impact the "Unrealized gains (losses)" component of "Net change in fair value of credit derivatives." The net notional outstanding of Ambac's CDS contracts is $15,281,299 and $18,766,354 at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively.

Credit derivative liabilities at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 had a combined fair value of $215,170 and $221,684, respectively, and related to underlying reference obligations that are classified as either CLOs or Other. Information about the above described model inputs used to determine the fair value of each class of credit derivatives as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 is summarized below:

			$00,000,000				$00,000,000
As of September 30, 2011
		CLOs				Other(1)
Notional outstanding		$	8,887,675			$	4,523,884
Weighted average reference obligation price			92.6				85.4
Weighted average life (WAL) in years			2.5				4.5
Weighted average credit rating			AA-				A+
Weighted average relative change ratio			34.4	%			38.1	%
CVA percentage			75	%			75	%
Fair value of derivative liabilities		$	(57,418	)		$	(82,102	)

			$00,000,000				$00,000,000
As of December 31, 2010
		CLOs				Other(1)
Notional outstanding		$	11,592,697			$	4,996,193
Weighted average reference obligation price			91.2				85.2
Weighted average life (WAL) in years			3.4				4.1
Weighted average credit rating			AA-				A+
Weighted average relative change ratio			34.4	%			38.0	%
CVA percentage			80	%			80	%
Fair value of derivative liabilities		$	(70,467	)		$	(72,692	)

(1) Excludes contracts for which fair values are based on credit derivative quotes rather than reference obligation quotes. Such contracts have a combined notional outstanding of $1,869,740, WAL of 9.3 years and liability fair value of ($75,650) as of September 30, 2011. Other inputs to the valuation of these transactions at September 30, 2011 include weighted average quotes of 16% of notional, weighted average rating of A+ and Ambac CVA percentage of 75%. As of December 31, 2010, these contracts had a combined notional outstanding of $2,177,464, WAL of 5.0 years and liability fair value of ($78,524). Other inputs to the valuation of these transactions at December 31, 2010 include weighted average quotes of 18% of notional, weighted average rating of A+ and Ambac CVA percentage of 80%.

Call options on long-term debt:

The fair value of Ambac Assurance's options to repurchase Ambac Assurance surplus notes at a discount to par is estimated based on a combination of internal discounted cash flow analysis and market observations. The discounted cash flow analysis uses multiple discount rate scenarios to determine the present value of the surplus notes assuming exercise and non-exercise of the options, with the difference representing the option value under that scenario. The results are probability weighted to determine the recorded option value.

Financial Guarantees:

Fair value of net financial guarantees written represents our estimate of the cost to Ambac to completely transfer its insurance obligation to another financial guarantor of comparable credit worthiness. In theory, this amount should be the same amount that another financial guarantor of comparable credit worthiness would hypothetically charge in the market place, on a present value basis, to provide the same protection as of the balance sheet date.

This fair value estimate of financial guarantees is presented in the table immediately following the first paragraph of this Note 11 on a net basis and includes direct and assumed contracts written, which represent our liability, net of ceded reinsurance contracts, which represent our asset. The fair value estimate of direct and assumed contracts written is based on the sum of the present values of (i) unearned premium reserves; and (ii) loss and loss expense reserves, including claims presented and not paid as a result of the claim moratorium imposed by OCI on March 24, 2010. The fair value estimate of ceded reinsurance contracts is based on the sum of the present values of (i) deferred ceded premiums net of ceding commissions; and (ii) reinsurance recoverables on paid and unpaid losses.

Key variables are par amounts outstanding (including future periods for the calculation of future installment premiums), expected term, discount rate, and expected net loss and loss expense payments. Net par outstanding is monitored by Ambac's Risk Group. With respect to the discount rate, ASC Topic 820 requires that the nonperformance risk of a financial liability be included in the estimation of fair value. This nonperformance risk would include considering Ambac's own credit risk in the fair value of financial guarantees we have issued, thus the estimated fair value for direct contracts written included an Ambac CVA to reflect Ambac's credit risk. The Ambac CVA was 75% and 80% as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Refer to "Credit Derivatives" above for additional information on the determination of the CVA. Refer to Note 6 for additional information on factors which influence our estimate of loss and loss expenses. The estimated fair value of ceded reinsurance contracts factors in any adjustments related to the counterparty credit risk we have with reinsurers.

There are a number of factors that limit our ability to accurately estimate the fair value of our financial guarantees. The first limitation is the lack of observable pricing data points as a result of Ambac no longer writing new financial guarantee business. Additionally, although the fair value accounting guidance for liabilities requires a company to consider the cost to completely transfer its obligation to another party of comparable credit worthiness, our primary insurance obligation is irrevocable and thus there is no established active market for transferring such obligations. Variables which are not incorporated in our current fair value estimate of financial guarantees include the credit spreads of the underlying insured obligations, the underlying ratings of those insured obligations and assumptions about current financial guarantee premium levels relative to the underlying insured obligations' credit spreads.

Liabilities Subject to Compromise:

The fair value of Ambac's debt included in Liabilities Subject to Compromise is based on quoted market prices. As described in Note 1, Ambac's Bankruptcy Filing constituted an event of default with respect to these debt securities.

Long-term Debt:

The fair value of surplus notes issued by Ambac Assurance and classified as long-term debt is internally estimated considering market transactions when available and internally developed discounted cash flow models.

Other Financial Assets and Liabilities:

The fair values of Ambac's equity interest in Ambac sponsored special purpose entities (included in Other assets), Loans, and Obligations under investment, repurchase and payment agreements are estimated based upon internal valuation models that discount expected cash flows using a discount rates consistent with the credit quality of the obligor after considering collateralization.

Variable Interest Entity Assets and Liabilities:

The financial assets and liabilities of VIEs consolidated under ASC Topic 810 consist primarily of fixed income securities, loans receivable, derivative instruments and debt instruments and are generally carried at fair value. These consolidated VIEs are securitization entities which have liabilities and/or assets guaranteed by Ambac. The fair values of VIE debt instruments are determined using the same methodologies used to value Ambac's fixed income securities in its investment portfolio as described above. VIE debt fair value is based on market prices received from dealer quotes or alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency. Such quotes are considered Level 2 and generally consider a variety of factors, including recent trades of the same and similar securities. For those VIE debt instruments where quotes were not available, the debt instrument fair values are considered Level 3 and are based on internal discounted cash flow models. VIE debt instruments considered Level 3 include fixed rate, floating rate and zero coupon notes secured by various asset types, primarily European ABS. Information about the valuation inputs for the various VIE debt categories classified as Level 3 is as follows:

European ABS transactions: Fair values were calculated by discounting contractual payments to maturity. The discount rates used were based on the rates implied from the third party quoted values (Level 2) for comparable notes from the same securitization. Significant inputs for the valuation at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 include the following weighted averages:

September 30, 2011

a. Coupon rate: 4.21%

b. Maturity: 14.19 years

c. Yield: 7.09%

December 31, 2010

a. Coupon rate: 4.21%

b. Maturity: 17.13 years

c. Yield: 7.11%

US Commercial ABS transaction: Fair values were calculated as the sum of expected future cash flows sourced from the underlying operating assets plus the fair value of the related Ambac financial guarantee cash flows. Expected cash flows were internally modeled in using probability weighted assumptions about future operating cash flows available to fund the debt service. The discount rates used were based on generic interest rates for generic spreads for similar securities. The fair value of financial guarantee cash flows include: (i) estimated future premiums discounted at a rate consistent with that used to discount cash flows sourced from the operating assets and (ii) internal estimates of future loss payments by Ambac adjusted to incorporate Ambac's own credit risk. Significant inputs for the valuation at September 30, 2011 and include the following weighted averages (there is no comparable Level 3 in this category for December 31, 2010):

September 30, 2011

a. Coupon rate: 6.98%

b. Maturity: 25.58 years

c. Yield: 14.62%

Other classes: Other classes include European Public Finance Initiatives, utilities, transportation and asset lease financing transactions. Fair values were calculated by discounting contractual payments to maturity. The discount rates used were derived from the third party quoted values (Level 2) for comparable notes from the same securitization when available. When no quotes were received on notes in a given structure, rates were derived from generic spreads for similar securities. Significant inputs for the valuation at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 include the following weighted averages:

September 30, 2011

a. Coupon rate: 7.88%

b. Maturity: 5.78 years

c. Yield: 7.71%

December 31, 2010

a. Coupon rate: 7.73%

b. Maturity: 6.51 years

c. Yield: 5.80%

VIE derivative asset and liability fair values are determined using valuation models. When specific derivative contractual terms are available and may be valued primarily by reference to interest rates, foreign exchange rates and yield curves that are observable and regularly quoted the derivatives are valued using vendor-developed models. Other derivatives within the VIEs that include significant unobservable valuation inputs are valued using internally developed models. All VIE derivatives at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 use vendor-developed models and do not use significant unobservable inputs.

The fair value of VIE assets are obtained from market quotes when available. Typically the asset fair values are not readily available from market quotes and are estimated internally. The consolidated VIEs are securitization entities in which net cash flows from assets and derivatives (after adjusting for financial guarantor cash flows and other expenses) will be paid out to note holders or equity interests. Our valuation of VIE assets (fixed income securities or loans), therefore, are derived from the fair value of notes and derivatives, as described above, adjusted for the fair value of cash flows from Ambac's financial guarantee. The fair value of financial guarantee cash flows include: (i) estimated future premiums discounted at a rate consistent with that implicit in the fair value of the VIE's liabilities and (ii) internal estimates of future loss payments by Ambac discounted at a rate that includes Ambac's own credit risk. Estimated future premium payments to be paid by the VIEs were discounted at a weighted average rate of 8.6% and 6.3% at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. The value of future loss payments to be paid by Ambac to the VIEs was adjusted to include an Ambac CVA appropriate for the term of expected Ambac claim payments.

The following tables present the changes in the Level 3 fair value category for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. Ambac classifies financial instruments in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy when there is reliance on at least one significant unobservable input to the valuation model. In addition to these unobservable inputs, the valuation models for Level 3 financial instruments typically also rely on a number of inputs that are readily observable either directly or indirectly. Thus, the gains and losses presented below include changes in the fair value related to both observable and unobservable inputs.

Level-3 financial assets and liabilities accounted for at fair value

														VIE Assets and Liabilities
Three months ended September 30, 2011		Investments				Other Assets				Derivatives				Investments				Loans				Derivatives				Long-term debt				Total
Balance, beginning of period		$	183,433			$	18,451			$	(262,287	)		$	2,023,513			$	14,442,912			$	—			$	(2,310,972	)		$	14,095,050
Additions of VIEs for ASC 2009-17			—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Total gains/(losses) realized and unrealized:
Included in earnings			(47	)			(1,119	)			(297,927	)			145,804				126,130				—				166,532				139,373
Included in other comprehensive income			(8,451	)			—				—				(62,870	)			(389,166	)			—				52,650				(407,837	)
Purchases			—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Issuances			—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Sales			—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Settlements			(2,099	)			—				70,241				—				(132,909	)			—				12,765				(52,002	)
Transfers in Level 3			—				—				—				—				—				—				(192,773	)			(192,773	)
Transfers out of Level 3			(75,483	)			—				—				—				—				—				116,237				40,754
Deconsolidation of VIEs			—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Balance, end of period		$	97,353			$	17,332			$	(489,973	)		$	2,106,447			$	14,046,967			$	—			$	(2,155,561	)		$	13,622,565
The amount of total gains/(losses) included in earnings attributable to the change in unrealized gains or losses relating to assets and liabilities still held at the reporting date		$	—			$	(1,119	)		$	(275,099	)		$	145,830			$	126,156			$	—			$	166,532			$	162,300

														VIE Assets and Liabilities
Nine months ended September 30, 2011		Investments				Other Assets				Derivatives				Investments				Loans				Derivatives				Long-term debt				Total
Balance, beginning of period		$	199,172			$	17,909			$	(195,934	)		$	1,904,361			$	15,800,918			$	4,511			$	(1,856,366	)		$	15,874,571
Additions of VIEs for ASC 2009-17			—				—				—				—				—				—				(350,624	)			(350,624	)
Total gains/(losses) realized and unrealized:
Included in earnings			(3,419	)			(577	)			(328,205	)			210,393				481,446				(4,511	)			63,605				418,732
Included in other comprehensive income			(541	)			—				—				(8,307	)			51,354				—				(41	)			42,465
Purchases			—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Issuances			—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Sales			(16,600	)			—				—				—				—				—				—				(16,600	)
Settlements			(5,776	)			—				34,166				—				(391,784	)			—				40,113				(323,281	)
Transfers in Level 3			—				—				—				—				—				—				(448,913	)			(448,913	)
Transfers out of Level 3			(75,483	)			—				—				—				—				—				396,665				321,182
Deconsolidation of VIEs			—				—				—				—				(1,894,967	)			—				—				(1,894,967	)
Balance, end of period		$	97,353			$	17,332			$	(489,973	)		$	2,106,447			$	14,046,967			$	—			$	(2,155,561	)		$	13,622,565
The amount of total gains/(losses) included in earnings attributable to the change in unrealized gains or losses relating to assets and liabilities still held at the reporting date		$	—			$	(577	)		$	(323,400	)		$	210,393			$	480,391			$	(4,511	)		$	63,605			$	425,901

Level- 3 financial assets and liabilities accounted for at fair value

Three months ended September 30, 2010
														VIE Assets and Liabilities
		Investments				Other Assets				Derivatives				Investments				Loans				Derivatives				Long-term debt				Total
Balance, beginning of period		$	179,690			$	20,511			$	(274,687	)		$	1,801,557			$	15,992,650			$	4,546			$	(4,231,330	)		$	13,492,937
Additions of VIEs for ASC 2009-17			—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Total gains/(losses) realized and unrealized:
Included in earnings			(47	)			(1,753	)			(65,509	)			43,859				517,243				(184	)			153,425				647,034
Included in other comprehensive income			1,168				—				—				94,076				768,009				—				(208,398	)			654,855
Purchases, issuances and settlements			(702	)			—				20,441				—				(150,711	)			—				47,703				(83,269	)
Transfers in Level 3			15,177				—				—				—				—				—				—				15,177
Transfers out of Level 3			—				—				—				—				—				—				2,190,370				2,190,370
Deconsolidation of VIEs			—				—				—				—				(119,543	)			—				—				(119,543	)
Balance, end of period		$	195,286			$	18,758			$	(319,755	)		$	1,939,492			$	17,007,648			$	4,362			$	(2,048,230	)		$	16,797,561

														VIE Assets and Liabilities
		Investments				Other Assets				Derivatives				Investments				Loans				Derivatives				Long-term debt				Total
Nine Months ended September 30, 2010
Balance, beginning of period		$	189,600			$	18,843			$	(2,998,447	)		$	160,518			$	2,428,352			$	—			$	(388,003	)		$	(589,137	)
Additions of VIEs for ASC 2009-17			—				—				—				3,817,065				17,275,234				(153,369	)			(6,699,121	)			14,239,809
Total gains/(losses) realized and unrealized:
Included in earnings			(192	)			(85	)			(106,287	)			788,139				1,725,291				(802	)			(1,403,129	)			1,002,935
Included in other comprehensive income			(6,668	)			—				—				7,308				(347,291	)			—				9,264				(337,387	)
Purchases, issuances and settlements			(2,631	)			—				2,903,086				—				(726,817	)			—				72,538				2,246,176
Transfers in Level 3			15,177				—				(118,107	)			—				—				—				(588,083	)			(691,013	)
Transfers out of Level 3			—				—				—				—				—				—				2,757,245				2,757,245
Deconsolidation of VIEs			—				—				—				(2,833,538	)			(3,347,121	)			158,533				4,191,059				(1,831,067	)
Balance, end of period		$	195,286			$	18,758			$	(319,755	)		$	1,939,492			$	17,007,648			$	4,362			$	(2,048,230	)		$	16,797,561

The tables below provide roll-forward information by class of investments and derivatives measured using significant unobservable inputs. This information is provided for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 as required by amendments to ASC Topic 820 effective January 1, 2011.

Level 3 – Investments by class

			$00,000				$00,000				$00,000				$00,000				$00,000
Three months ended September 30, 2011		Collateralized Debt Obligations				Other Asset Backed Securities				Corporate Obligations				U.S. Agency Obligations				Total Investments
Balance, beginning of period		$	14,713			$	159,768			$	7,968			$	984			$	183,433
Total gains/(losses) realized and unrealized:
Included in earnings			(2	)			—				(45	)			—				(47	)
Included in other comprehensive income			52				(8,719	)			226				(10	)			(8,451	)
Purchases			—				—				—				—				—
Issuances			—				—				—				—				—
Sales			—				—				—				—				—
Settlements			(2,099	)			—				—				—				(2,099	)
Transfers in Level 3			—				—				—				—				—
Transfers out of Level 3			—				(75,483	)			—				—				(75,483	)
Deconsolidation of VIEs			—				—				—				—				—
Balance, end of period		$	12,664			$	75,566			$	8,149			$	974			$	97,353
The amount of total gains/(losses) included in earnings attributable to the change in unrealized gains or losses relating to assets and liabilities still held at the reporting date		$	—			$	—			$	—			$	—			$	—

			$00,000				$00,000				$00,000				$00,000				$00,000
Nine months ended September 30, 2011		Collateralized Debt Obligations				Other Asset Backed Securities				Corporate Obligations				U.S. Agency Obligations				Total Investments
Balance, beginning of period		$	30,433			$	159,473			$	8,069			$	1,197			$	199,172
Total gains/(losses) realized and unrealized:
Included in earnings			(3,284	)			—				(132	)			(3	)			(3,419	)
Included in other comprehensive income			6,185				(6,931	)			212				(7	)			(541	)
Purchases			—				—				—				—				—
Issuances			—				—				—				—				—
Sales			(16,600	)			—				—				—				(16,600	)
Settlements			(4,070	)			(1,493	)			—				(213	)			(5,776	)
Transfers in Level 3			—				—				—				—				—
Transfers out of Level 3			—				(75,483	)			—				—				(75,483	)
Deconsolidation of VIEs			—				—				—				—				—
Balance, end of period		$	12,664			$	75,566			$	8,149			$	974			$	97,353
The amount of total gains/(losses) included in earnings attributable to the change in unrealized gains or losses relating to assets and liabilities still held at the reporting date		$	—			$	—			$	—			$	—			$	—

Three months ended September 30, 2011		Interest Rate Swaps				Credit Derivatives				Call Options on  Long-term debt				Total Derivatives
Balance, beginning of period		$	(67,210	)		$	(215,847	)		$	20,770			$	(262,287	)
Additions of VIEs for ASC 2009-17
Total gains/(losses) realized and unrealized:
Included in earnings			(295,523	)			4,506				(6,910	)			(297,927	)
Included in other comprehensive income			—				—				—				—
Purchases			—				—				—				—
Issuances			—				—				—				—
Sales			—				—				—				—
Settlements			74,070				(3,829	)			—				70,241
Transfers in Level 3			—				—				—				—
Transfers out of Level 3			—				—				—				—
Deconsolidation of VIEs			—				—				—				—
Balance, end of period		$	(288,663	)		$	(215,170	)		$	13,860			$	(489,973	)
The amount of total gains/(losses) included in earnings attributable to the change in unrealized gains or losses relating to assets and liabilities still held at the reporting date		$	(257,764	)		$	(10,425	)		$	(6,910	)		$	(275,099	)

Nine months ended September 30, 2011		Interest Rate Swaps				Credit Derivatives				Call Options on  Long-term debt				Total Derivatives
Balance, beginning of period		$	25,750			$	(221,684	)		$	—			$	(195,934	)
Additions of VIEs for ASC 2009-17
Total gains/(losses) realized and unrealized:
Included in earnings			(361,955	)			19,890				13,860				(328,205	)
Included in other comprehensive income			—				—				—				—
Purchases			—				—				—				—
Issuances			—				—				—				—
Sales			—				—				—				—
Settlements			47,542				(13,376	)			—				34,166
Transfers in Level 3			—				—				—				—
Transfers out of Level 3			—				—				—				—
Deconsolidation of VIEs			—				—				—				—
Balance, end of period		$	(288,663	)		$	(215,170	)		$	13,860			$	(489,973	)
The amount of total gains/(losses) included in earnings attributable to the change in unrealized gains or losses relating to assets and liabilities still held at the reporting date		$	(327,371	)		$	(9,889	)		$	13,860			$	(323,400	)

Invested assets and VIE long-term debt are transferred into Level 3 when internal valuation models that include significant unobservable inputs are used to estimate fair value. All such securities that have internally modeled fair values have been classified as Level 3 as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Derivative instruments are transferred into Level 3 when the use of unobservable inputs becomes significant to the overall valuation. During 2010, transfers of derivatives to Level 3 related to the inclusion of fair value adjustments to reflect estimated replacement or exit costs, as described under "Derivative Instruments" above, which are not reflected in the net present value of the projected contractual cash flows. All transfers into and out of Level 3 represent transfers between Level 3 and Level 2. There were no transfers in or out of Level 1 for the periods presented. All Level 1, 2, and 3 transfers are recognized at the beginning of each accounting period.

Gains and losses (realized and unrealized) relating to Level 3 assets and liabilities included in earnings for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 are reported as follows:

		Net investment income				Realized gains or (losses)  and other settlements on credit  derivative contracts				Unrealized gains or  (losses) on  credit derivative contracts				Derivative products revenues (interest Rate Swaps)				Income (loss)  on variable interest entities				Other income (loss)
Three Months ended September 30, 2011
Total gains or losses included in earnings for the period		$	(47	)		$	3,829			$	676			$	(295,523	)		$	438,466			$	(8,029	)
Changes in unrealized gains or losses relating to the assets and liabilities still held at the reporting date			—				—				(10,425	)			(257,764	)			438,518				(8,029	)
Nine Months ended September 30, 2011
Total gains or losses included in earnings for the period		$	(3,419	)		$	13,376			$	6,513			$	(361,955	)		$	750,933			$	13,283
Changes in unrealized gains or losses relating to the assets and liabilities still held at the reporting date			—				—				(9,889	)			(327,371	)			749,878				13,283
Three Months ended September 30, 2010
Total gains or losses included in earnings for the period		$	(47	)		$	4,862			$	4,550			$	(74,921	)		$	714,343			$	(1,753	)
Changes in unrealized gains or losses relating to the assets and liabilities still held at the reporting date			—				—				7,363				(74,004	)			714,854				(1,753	)
Nine Months ended September 30, 2010
Total gains or losses included in earnings for the period		$	(192	)		$	(2,762,509	)		$	2,806,963			$	(150,741	)		$	1,109,499			$	(85	)
Changes in unrealized gains or losses relating to the assets and liabilities still held at the reporting date			—				—				(465,609	)			(151,207	)			1,547,838				(85	)

Assets Measured at Fair Value on a Nonrecurring Basis:

In accordance with the provisions of ASC Topic 350, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other, and as further described in Note 4, certain intangible assets of one of the company's consolidated VIEs were written-down to fair value of $254,163 as of September 30, 2011, resulting in an impairment charge of $58,309 which was included in Financial Guarantee: Income (loss) on variable interest entities. This fair value measurement required significant unobservable inputs resulting in a classification of the measurement as Level 3 under the fair value hierarchy. Similar to the fair value measurement of VIE financial assets described above, the fair value of this VIE's intangible assets were derived from the fair value of the entity's notes adjusted for the fair value of cash flows from Ambac's financial guarantee. The fair value of financial guarantee cash flows include: (i) estimated future premiums discounted at a rate consistent with that implicit in the fair value of the VIE's liabilities and (ii) internal estimates of future loss payments by Ambac discounted at a rate that includes Ambac's own credit risk. Estimated future premium payments to be paid by the VIEs were discounted at a rate of 14.6% at the impairment date of September 30, 2011. The value of future loss payments to be paid by Ambac to the VIEs was adjusted to include an Ambac CVA as described above.

X

- Details

Name:	us-gaap_FairValueDisclosuresAbstract
Namespace Prefix:	us-gaap
Data Type:	xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type:	na
Period Type:	duration

X

- Definition

The entire disclosure for the fair value of financial instruments (as defined), including financial assets and financial liabilities (collectively, as defined), and the measurements of those instruments as well as disclosures related to the fair value of non-financial assets and liabilities. Such disclosures about the financial instruments, assets, and liabilities would include: (1) the fair value of the required items together with their carrying amounts (as appropriate); (2) for items for which it is not practicable to estimate fair value, disclosure would include: (a) information pertinent to estimating fair value (including, carrying amount, effective interest rate, and maturity, and (b) the reasons why it is not practicable to estimate fair value; (3) significant concentrations of credit risk including: (a) information about the activity, region, or economic characteristics identifying a concentration, (b) the maximum amount of loss the entity is exposed to based on the gross fair value of the related item, (c) policy for requiring collateral or other security and information as to accessing such collateral or security, and (d) the nature and brief description of such collateral or security; (4) quantitative information about market risks and how such risks are managed; (5) for items measured on both a recurring and nonrecurring basis information regarding the inputs used to develop the fair value measurement; and (6) for items presented in the financial statement for which fair value measurement is elected: (a) information necessary to understand the reasons for the election, (b) discussion of the effect of fair value changes on earnings, (c) a description of [similar groups] items for which the election is made and the relation thereof to the balance sheet, the aggregate carrying value of items included in the balance sheet that are not eligible for the election; (7) all other required (as defined) and desired information.

+ References

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 820

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 5

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6925170&loc=d3e19296-110258



Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 159

-Paragraph 17-22, 27, 28

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.



Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 825

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 10

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6947722&loc=d3e13433-108611



Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 107

-Paragraph 15C, 15D

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.



Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 825

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 28

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6957238&loc=d3e14064-108612



Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 825

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 16

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6947722&loc=d3e13504-108611



Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 107

-Paragraph 15A

-Subparagraph a-d

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.



Reference 8: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 825

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 21

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6947722&loc=d3e13537-108611



Reference 9: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 133

-Paragraph 44A, 44B

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.



Reference 10: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 820

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 2

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6925170&loc=d3e19207-110258



Reference 11: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 825

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 30

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6957238&loc=d3e14172-108612



Reference 12: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 107

-Paragraph 3, 10, 14, 15

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.



Reference 13: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 107

-Paragraph 15B

-Subparagraph a, b

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.



Reference 14: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 157

-Paragraph 32, 33, 34

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

+ Details

Name:	us-gaap_FairValueDisclosuresTextBlock
Namespace Prefix:	us-gaap
Data Type:	nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type:	na
Period Type:	duration