BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1645| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONSENT Bill No: AB 1645 Author: Dababneh (D) Introduced:1/12/16 Vote: 21 SENATE INSURANCE COMMITTEE: 8-0, 6/22/16 AYES: Roth, Gaines, Berryhill, Glazer, Hall, Hernandez, Mitchell, Wieckowski NO VOTE RECORDED: Liu ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 4/14/16 (Consent) - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Mortgage guaranty insurance SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill prevents the automatic re-enactment of a restriction on the amount of mortgage guaranty insurance that a mortgage guaranty insurer may write on residential property designed for occupancy of four families or less, absent that mortgage guaranty insurer purchasing reinsurance on those policies. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Provides for the regulation of mortgage guaranty insurance by the California Department of Insurance (CDI), and requires a AB 1645 Page 2 certificate of authority separate from other insurance authority in the state; 2)Defines, generally, mortgage guaranty insurance as insurance against loss as a result of nonpayment of a real estate loan; 3)Requires mortgage guaranty insurers to have paid-in capital of at least $1 million and paid-in surplus of at least $1 million; 4)Requires mortgage guaranty insurers to also establish a contingency reserve for the protection of policyholders against the effect of adverse economic cycles, as specified; 5)Requires a mortgage guaranty insurer to limit its coverage, for the class of insurance that insures against financial loss by reason of nonpayment of principal, interest, and other sums under any evidence of indebtedness secured by a mortgage, deed of trust, or other instrument constituting a first lien or charge on a residential building or a condominium unit or buildings designed for occupancy by more than four families, commercial properties, and junior liens on residential properties designed for four or fewer families to no more than a net of 30% at risk of the entire indebtedness to the insured, or a mortgage guaranty insurer may elect to pay the entire indebtedness to the insured and acquire title to the authorized real estate security, as specified; 6)Reapplies the same limit of 30% in 5) above to mortgage guaranty insurance for loans for residential properties designed for four families or less, on January 1, 2018; and 7)Authorizes a mortgage guaranty insurer to extend its coverage AB 1645 Page 3 for this class of insurance beyond the established limits, provided the excess is insured by a contract of reinsurance. This bill prevents the automatic re-enactment of a restriction on the amount of mortgage guaranty insurance that a mortgage guaranty insurer may write on residential property designed for occupancy of four families or less, absent that mortgage guaranty insurer purchasing reinsurance on those policies. Background Mortgage guaranty insurers underwrite insurance policies which compensate lender or investor losses due to the default of a mortgage loan. Prior to the enactment of SB 1450 (Calderon, Chapter 105, Statutes of 2012), a mortgage guaranty insurer had to limit its coverage for residential properties designed for no more than four families to no more than a net of 30% of risk of the entire indebtedness to the insurer. A 30% limit for properties designed for more than 4 families and industrial or commercial buildings and a 20% limit on junior liens were not changed by the 2012 legislation. In all categories, mortgage insurers were (and in the other categories still are) allowed to extend the coverage beyond the limit provided the excess was reinsured through another insurance company. The 2012 legislation included a sunset of December 31, 2017, to ensure that there were no unintended consequences of repealing the limit for single family residential properties. The 30% cap was originally adopted in an effort to accomplish three things: attract new capital to the mortgage guaranty insurance market, spread the risk to non-real estate based insurers, and obtain underwriting discipline by virtue of the third-party reinsurer assuming financial risk. This hoped-for market never materialized, however, and mortgage guaranty insurers were left with the prospect of not continuing to write this insurance for borrowers (often first-time borrowers who could not afford the home without an insured loan), or reinsuring with an affiliate of a competitor. While many AB 1645 Page 4 mortgage guaranty insurers did this for a time, most companies found it distasteful to have to do business, including sharing financial information, with competitors. As a result, many insurers simply established their own captive affiliates for the purpose of reinsuring this risk. Only eight states enacted the reinsurance limitation and six have now repealed it (including California subject to a sunset clause). The National Association of Insurance Commissioners Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Working Group is in the process of re-writing its Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Model Act and has removed the requirement for mandatory reinsurance from the latest draft. The revised Model Act draft would require a mortgage guaranty insurance company to retain at least twenty-five percent (25%) of its risk in force on either a first loss or quota share basis, if any portion of the risk in force is ceded to one or more reinsurers, unless a lesser retention is approved in writing by the state insurance commissioner. It also would expressly prohibit a mortgage guaranty insurance company from entering into captive reinsurance arrangements which involve the direct or indirect ceding of any portion of its insurance risks or obligations to a reinsurer owned or controlled by the insured or from entering into any new reinsurance arrangements with any affiliate unless it has obtained prior written approval by its state's insurance commissioner. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:NoLocal: No SUPPORT: (Verified6/27/16) U.S. Mortgage Insurers AB 1645 Page 5 OPPOSITION: (Verified6/27/16) None received ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, prior law required mortgage guaranty insurers to acquire reinsurance that did not improve the insurer's risk profile, was costly because the mortgage guaranty insurer must capitalize an affiliated reinsurer to meet this misguided requirement, and resulted in unnecessary regulatory costs for both the CDI and the insurer. According to U.S. Mortgage Insurers, AB 1645 will eliminate the unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on retained risk and reinsurance, and allow mortgage guaranty insurers to have more capital available to pay claims rather than administrative overhead. ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 4/14/16 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon NO VOTE RECORDED: Irwin, Levine, Melendez, Nazarian Prepared by:Erin Ryan / INS. / (916) 651-4110 6/29/16 15:45:38 **** END **** AB 1645 Page 6