Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to Radian’s Fourth Quarter and Full Year End 2014 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to our host Senior Vice President of Investor Relation, Emily Riley. Please go ahead.

Thank you and welcome to Radian’s fourth quarter 2014 conference call. Our press release, which contains Radian’s financial results for the quarter was issued earlier this morning and is posted to the Investors section of our website at www.radian.biz. This press release includes a non-GAAP financial measure that will be discussed during today’s call. The complete description of this measures and the reconciliation to GAAP, may be found in press release Exhibit E and F and on the Investors section of our website. During the call, you will hear from S.A. Ibrahim, Radian’s, Chief Executive Officer; and Franklin Hall, Chief Financial Officer. Also on hand for the Q&A portion of the call are Teresa Bryce Bazemore, President of Radian Guaranty; David Beidler, President of Radian Asset Assurance; and Derek Brummer, Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer of Radian Group; and Joseph D’Urso, President of Clayton; and Cathy Jackson, Corporate Controller. Before we begin, I would like to remind you that comments made during this call will include forward-looking statements. These statements are based on current expectations, estimates, projections and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties, which may cause actual results to differ materially. For a discussion of these risks, please review the cautionary statements regarding forward-looking statements included in our earnings release and the risk factors included in our 2013 Form 10-K and subsequent reports filed with the SEC. These are also available on our website. Now, I would like to turn the call over to S.A.

Thank you, Emily. Thank you all for joining us and for your interest in Radian. I couldn’t be more excited to share with you the progress we made in 2014 to reposition Radian for greater success in the future. We reduced our overall risk profile, putting much of our legacy exposure behind us, we introduced our new mortgage and real estate services segment to differentiate Radiant and diversify our revenue sources and we achieved our first full year of profitability since 2006, exiting the year with an announcement to sell our financial guaranty company Radion Assets and eliminate our exposure to financial guaranty credit risk. All in all, it was quite a year. After what’s had been a long road to recovery for Radian, following the housing downturn, I’m delighted to turn our attention away from the rear-view mirror. I look forward to discussing our financial results and reviewing our major accomplishments during our call today, while also providing a look ahead at our plans to expand and strengthen our core businesses. But first, let me introduce Frank Hall, our Chief Financial Officer, who joined Radian at the start of the year and has quickly become a valuable member of our team. Frank will cover the details of our financial position following my remarks today. As you know, our long time colleague and friend Bob Quint has retired as Radian’s CFO and is helping this year to transition Frank into his new role. I’ll close my remarks today with a few comments about Bob. Turning to the quarter’s results. Earlier today, we reported net income for the fourth quarter of 2014 of $428 million, or $1.78 per diluted share. These results include two significant items, a net loss on discontinued operations of $450 million, or $1.85 per diluted share, which…

Thank you, S.A. It’s a pleasure to be here and I’m truly honored to be part of the Radian team. I want to also thank my predecessor Bob Quint for his generosity of time and helping me transition into the role. As S.A. mentioned in his remarks, in addition to the strong operating results for Radian for both the quarter and the year, the financial statements have been significantly impacted by the pending sale of our Financial Guaranty business and reversal of the valuation allowance held against our deferred tax asset. Our Financial Guaranty business previously reported as a separate segment in our financial statements is now accounted for as discontinued operations. On our income statement and balance sheet, you will note single line items for the approximate $450 million after tax loss from discontinued operations, $1.7 billion in assets held for sale and $947 million for liabilities held for sale. Overall, we recognized a pre-tax loss on sale of approximately $468 million. Our full presentation of this information is done so in a way to both comply with the GAAP requirements of discontinued operations and to provide greater clarity around the moving parts. The required segment and financial reporting associated with discontinued operations does not permits all previously allocated corporate expenses to be contained within the discontinued operations. Additionally, we have elected not to allocate any interest expense perviously allocated to the Financial Guaranty segment to discontinued operations. Accordingly, these expenses, which will continue after closing, have been reallocated to the mortgage insurance segment for financial reporting for all periods presented. In press release, Exhibit E, we have also presented the impact of these reallocations on the mortgage insurance segment to provide greater transparency and comparability to the prior periods. And likewise, Exhibit D illustrates the detail of discontinued…

Thank you, Frank. Let me summarize three important takeaways for 2014. First, we achieved our first full year of profitability since 2006 and meaningfully reduce Radian’s overall risk profile including the sale of Radian Asset putting many of the challenges of our legacy business behind us. Second, we acquired Clayton and introduced our mortgage and real estate services segment with a clear path for growth ahead. We are driving long-term value from our existing and growing portfolio while diversifying our future sources of revenue. Third, as we look to 2015 and beyond, our top priority is to continue to leverage our ability to expand and strengthen our core businesses and to build on our 2014 accomplishments. Before we open the call to your questions, I would like to remind you that I’ll come back after the Q&A to say a few words about Bob Quint. Now, I would like to open the call to your questions. Operator?

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Eric Beardsley with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you. Congrats Frank on the new role, welcome to the company.

Thank you, Eric.

Just had some questions about the provision trends in the quarter. If looking at the provision dollars per new notice of default, it looks like it ticked up a bit from the third quarter. I was just wondering what was behind that?

This is Derek. I mean to some extent you’re going to see natural kind of seasonal trends and so that’s going to have a marginal impact. I think overall looking at it continues the trend we’ve been seeing, which is generally a decrease in new defaults, claims submitted are down and cures are up, so it really continues that trend, we would expect to continue to see that. You just saw a little bit of seasonal impact probably in the fourth quarter.

Okay. So there is no change in terms of the ultimate claim rate assumptions on your new notices?

We did tick that down from 17% to 16% and the trend on that would expect to probably see that decrease over time.

Okay. And then just on OpEx, I didn’t catch up, but how much was the impact of stock comp relative to the third quarter? And then how should we think about that OpEx run rate moving forward from here?

Yes, so – are you talking about the third quarter or fourth quarter?

In the fourth quarter.

Okay. So in the fourth quarter, the total comp related expense was $24.4 million and of that roughly $10 million of it was attributable to stock price increase.

Okay. And now is relative to the third quarter, the $10 million?

That’s correct. In the third quarter, it was the opposite direction.

Got it. And how should we think about I guess the total OpEx moving forward from here?

Sure, I think so as you normalize for the items that we’ve called out in the press release that reflects probably a pretty good run rate going forward. But keep in mind as we continue to invest in new products, sales force and systems, there maybe a slight uptick there, but balance with what I call an overarching discipline of looking for continual efficiency opportunities through the organization.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Bose George with KBW. Please go ahead.

Yes, good morning. Actually just to follow-up on that stock comp question. Going forward, is there is a good run rate for that numbers like if the stock prices up, whatever. So that the $2 you did this where increase this quarter versus the $10 million. Is that kind of a good ratio to look at it?

Sure, the calculation is approximately $4 million for every dollar in the stock price rise, but keep in mind too that – does that expense will be completed in June?

Okay. So after that the stock comp expense has gone.

That’s correct.

Okay, great. And then you noted that there’re some expenses reallocated. I was just wondering if there a room to cut some of those expenses?

Absolutely, I mean most of the expenses that were reallocated were corporate overhead expenses and that’s something that we’re always mindful of as we review the performance of the organization. So don’t have a hard dollar on that at this time, but certainly, we will be reevaluating the support cost going forward.

Okay, great. And then actually so the interest expense I guess also was reallocated, is there – I guess if that changes only if you delever like just what thoughts on interest expense going forward?

So the interest expense that you’re looking at, which may have previously been allocated to FG because we – because of the way that we accounted for discontinued operations, the full burden of that now resides within MI.

Okay, that makes sense. Okay, great. Thanks very much.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Sean Dargan with Macquarie. Please go ahead.

Thanks and good morning. I apologize if I missed this, but where the provisions for existing delinquencies, was that impacted at all by the BofA settlement?

No, it wasn’t. We’re fully reserved for the BofA settlement. We have yet to effect the settlement, but we’re full reserved that we will have no impact on the provision of losses going forward.

And that was Cathy Jackson on control.

Okay, thank you. And regarding FHA pricing, a competitor quantified the amount of business written last year that would be cheaper under the new FHA guidelines this year to the borrower. I was wondering if you could give us some more sensitivity or just what that number was, if you know it?

Teresa?

Well, I would say that we believe we can still be competitive with the FHA because actually if you look back and look at certain buckets of business where the FHA has had a pricing advantage, we still been able to win business in those buckets. So it doesn’t sort of follow with sort of perfect execution if you will. And I think there are number of reasons for that. One is lender preference, one is lender capacity for FHA, and one is cancelability of MI versus the FHA, which stays on. And even the upfront premium that FHA charges, which then usually rolls into the loan amount. So we’re still waiting to see what happens with respect to the G fees and LLPA’s because that will have an impact on this as well. But I think at the end of the day, we believe the effect will be somewhere in the mid single-digits.

Okay. And that’s net of changes that you may expect to happen to LLPAs and G fees?

It is actually sort of just taking a look at how this has worked in the past and kind of saying where could we still compete and taking in these other factors. We think that G fees and the LLPAs could have some additional effect on that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Geoffrey Dunn with Dowling and Partners. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning. 31% of your business from single this quarter, competitors saying it’s time to back away from that market. It’s too competitive pricing wise. What are the unit returns on your singles business versus your monthly? And why is a business we should be comfortable with you’re having such a high mix involved?

Let me first say that we’ve always been comfortable writing a portion of our business to singles as a competitive product with FHA and also to balance the duration risk in our portfolio. And while the singles have a lower expected return than monthly that return is based on duration assumptions that are difficult to estimate. In fact in some of the recent vintages where loan durations were much shorter than originally anticipated, particularly in any heavy refinance environment, they resulted in higher than expected returns for singles. In addition, the singles have historically contained marginally better credit quality than monthlies, which has also helped their results. So we’re carefully managing the overall returns that are generated by our business on a blended basis and we’ll continue to do so while providing our MI customers with a wide array of products and services that help their business succeed.

Even where pricing is currently is, is this a double digit return product?

Jeff, it has been a product like we’ve always said in the single-digits - high single-digits, but the better way to look at it is on a blended basis because pretty much most of the singles business we do is with customers, who give us a variety of business and so we look at it on a blended return basis. And our historical experience like Teressa said with singles has been that the best strategy we pursue is a blended strategy of some singles and some monthly. That said, of course, any competitive actions that reduce the – reduce there going after singles aggressively, we’ll hopefully change the market profile to benefit all of us.

The only other thing I would just notice that we tend to see a bit more singles in a refi environment. So given that we’re in one right now, we may see a little bit of an uptick as a result of that.

Right, okay. And then a question on the PMIERs delta, now down to the site of $350 million as of June 15 estimates, obviously of a two year implementation period. What – how much do you think that $350 million to narrow over the two year period, if we say these things are finalized by the end of second quarter?

I mean over the two year period, the estimate is it will go away entirely, so the short fall will be entirely closed.

And that Jeff it seems no changes.

Okay, great. That’s all I had. Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jack Micenko with SIG. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. The investment income line, was that – I’m assuming that was all driven by the reduction of FG or was there any other portfolio positioning a play on the investment yields?

Yes, so the investment income, yes, excludes FG. And if you look at Exhibit D and add that together with what you’re seeing in MI, you should see a more normalized income item or revenue item there.

Okay, great. And then on the Clayton, I mean, obviously, there is a play here on the private label market coming back 15% this quarter, 18% last. I mean is that 15% to 18% range is that – is it closer to 18% or closer to 15% as we think about the business X a meaningful recovery and securitization for 2015 and 2016?

Yes, thanks Jack. This is Joe D’Urso. The fourth quarter was definitely a little bit slow. There are some seasonal factors that played into that, having said that the third quarter was particularly strong quarter. So I think somewhere in the middle is a normal run rate absent the return of the RMBS market in any significant way.

Okay, great, and then a real quick. S.A. you had mentioned in your prepared comments, you thought NIW could grow year-over-year. I’m wondering if you are willing to put a percent magnitude on that prediction, thanks.

Jack, there are so many things happening in this market as you know, it’s hard to put a percent number on it. However, the expectation is that the originations this year will be larger. We basically have all these new customers that we signed up in last year was impact is only tiny in the year in which we signed them up and a greater impact next year. So a number of things that go into it, but we feel good that basically – starting this year out that we will be able to beat last year.

Okay, thanks for the try. Anyway, thanks guys.

Hey, after last time, you can’t get me to put a number.

Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Mark DeVries of Barclays. Please go ahead.

Yes, thanks. My first question is actually a follow-up on that. Well, I understand you’re not going to put a scale the size of the NIW increase. Just wondering – I am trying to get the sense of the implications sort of for growth and risk. What percentage of that you think comes from refi transactions that that maybe left and how much of that maybe just from expansion of the market and the growth in the purchase market kind of driving risks higher?

This is Teresa. So, well, there maybe some increase from a refi point of view at the early part of this year. We really think that the focus is on purchase growth. There is a lot of focus on buyer starting to come back into the market formation of households, starting to ramp up again. And so, we’re really looking at it in terms of the purchase volume. And if you look at the demographics as well, a lot of the households that are coming into the market, we would expect to be in need of low down payment mortgages. Is that answers your question?

Yes, yes. So is it reasonable to assume [indiscernible] you could see growth in risk in force year-over-year that’s kind of in line with sort of better than what you saw in 2014 then?

Well, I think what we’re saying is, we think we would do better than last year, but we’re not giving any magnitude on that.

And those 2014 as well as longer term things to keep it in mind when you’re talking about the purchase market, while the purchase market have been off to a slow start, particularly in 2014. The long-term demographics are still very favorable with the expectation that a lot of the future purchase volume will come from the Hispanic, the African-American and the Asian segments. And as you know we have been making investments and positioning ourselves with connections to put us in a better spot in dealing with those segments.

Okay, great. And just one other question I wanted to dig a little bit into the comment that you expect times 20% loss ratios on newer business that you’re writing. Is that 20% loss ratio expectation, does that reflects the better than expected performance I think you also alluded to or is it simply a reflection of kind of the loss ratios you would expect to see given the LTVs and the high FICOs of the business that you’ve been writing and may not necessarily even yet reflect the fact that performance could come even better than you would have modeled when you that business?

Yes, the 20% is really focused upon the new business. So Frank alluded to the fact that some of the recent vintages could be better than that. So for instance the 2010 to 2012 vintages I think the development is looking better than that. So you could probably see a loss ratio below 20%, but the 20% was specifically referencing kind of the new business production based upon FICO and LTV that we’re seeing in the market.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Doug Harter with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.

Thanks. I recognizing that it’s early, I’m just wondering if you’ve heard any anecdotes from sort of any of your originator partners kind of how they’re viewing FHA premium cut and if you’re seeing any sort of shifts – business or non-shifted business in a couple of weeks?

[Indiscernible] and answer that. All I’ve been hearing is they are so swamped with refinance volume that I don’t know if they’ve have been able to focus on it.

Yes, I mean I think that that’s certainly what we’ve been hearing. I think a couple of important points: one is the focus really seems to be on refi, the current FHA business. And so, everyone is concerned about that, they’re concerned about the value of their MSRs and trying to at least recapture them even if it’s at a lower coupon. So that seems to be where the focus is as opposed to it really sort of cannibalizing any of the business that we would typically see. I think the other thing is for many lenders. They are still concerned about the actions that have been taken against them by the Department of Justice and they are reluctant to increase the amount of FHA lending they’ve done. So I’ve heard from a number of lenders that well they will continue to participate in the FHA market, they don’t have a lot appetite, just increase the amount of FHA lending that they’re doing.

Great, that’s very helpful. Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Chris Gamaitoni with Autonomous. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Thanks for taking my call. On the – there was a $10 million quarter-over-quarter IBNR increase, does that related to the Bank of America settlement. You would think have been experienced in the recent path as those decisions and denials move to actual new delinquencies that would go down, not up.

Yes, this is Cathy Jackson. Yes, that’s exactly what’s related to. It’s related to decisions and denials related to the population of loans that are included in the settlement agreement with Bank of America, so that will be paid out in the future, but there is no [indiscernible] reserves, there is no impact.

So barring some adverse development, which we haven’t seen, we should think – we can think of that more like a one time because the settlement rather than something as a larger issue? Barring changes in the previous…

Yes, you’ll see that come down significantly.

Okay, perfect. And then on the new default reserving, I just had a follow up question, if I look at the net new defaults, the new defaults minus intra-quarter cures. It looks like there was a reserve from 9,400 to 10,700 and with the commentary of 17% the fall, probably the 16% it implies at the average NIW increase by over $11,000, it just seems like a lot to me more than seasonally driven?

Yes, I don’t know about the exact math there, I mean, the other thing that offset the decrease in the new default were always picked up the severity side was from a 103% or 104%, so that has some potential impact.

Okay, well. Thanks for taking my call.

Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Geoffrey Dunn with Dowling & Partners. Please go ahead.

Thanks, just a follow-up. Strategically, we saw Arch talk about creating subsidiaries to all non-GSE business. Curious, what you think about that and strategically, is that something you think Radian could move towards as well both for non-performing jumbo, but also kind of alternative credit enhancement opportunities?

Geoff, I did know one of the things that at Radian, we – that characterizes about and even did during the downturn as we operate with one foot in the present and one foot in the future. So we did not shy away from making investments in our future, even during the downturn and we continue to do that. So we will look at all the opportunities related to positioning ourselves even more strongly to benefit from the private label RMBS market coming back, those of our players who – team members who went to the ABS Conference in Las Vegas, came back feeling that the mood was very positive that set those people always have a positive mood, there’s more a question of when they need - right now we have the capacity to write that business from our existing entities. But we will continuously look at whether that opportunity is best served through new entities and as you know we are a company that looks at the opportunity from private label, it’s a very attractive opportunity and our core Clayton strategy is predicated on playing a big role in that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of [indiscernible] with Compass Point. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. Thank you for taking my questions. Which are the $60 million decline in the projected net for – short-fall of available assets by December of 2015 from $400 million to $350 million?

Mainly, that’s related to the additional eligible assets $24 million that Frank mentioned in its script related to the reinsurance agreement and the both the profit commission and the upfront ceding commission which are eligible PMIERs assets, that’s most of it.

Okay, great. And in terms of Clayton, how much cash was allocated to Radian Group from Clayton in the fourth quarter?

So from Clayton to Radian Group approximately $4 million came from Clayton to Radian and that’s assuming also that they bore the full burden of the interest expense on their debt.

Okay. And then it looks like cash assets remained in the $10 million range since the middle of last year. Is that – should we expect capital requirements or cash requirements to increase as the business scales or is that kind of a run rate for your operating level at this time over the near term?

So are you asking how much cash we expect to receive from Clayton to…

Yes, how much cash is required?

I think that’s - well as far as the requirement, there is no requirements. We obviously have the debt service that’s allocated to them, but any amount beyond that will really depend on their business results and needs.

Okay, so generally though it’s not a capital intensive business?

That’s correct.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. And our last question comes from line of Steve Stimac with FBR. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. Teresa, I think, I heard you mentioned that in respect to the FHA premium cuts that the private MI still win a decent chunk of business despite being higher priced because you offer sort of better execution to the originator. To the extent that the Supreme Court may quantify the spread impact this term? Is that does in fact happen does it make it harder to compete on service, on the execution and sort of forcing the industry to cut piece solely on premium vis-à-vis FHA?

I think, Steve, I’m not sure I’m familiar with the Supreme Court decision that you’re referencing. Could you maybe elaborate a little bit?

Yes, I think was a disparate impact challenge to HUDs, the disparate impact rule this term, they should be decided sometime this spring from last we’ve heard. And so to extent that they sort of codify that rule, does it make it harder to sort of compete on services and instead the borrower has to get the absolute cheapest execution not necessarily the quickest or best, they just have to get the cheapest. Is that a risk?

I don’t think that that results in the borrower necessarily having to get the cheapest because I think there are number of things that go into that. So for instance, if I’m a borrower and I’m looking at what my loan options are I’m going to be thinking about the fact that at some point my premium is going to cancel, if it is an MI loan and I’m not going to – and my payment is actually going to go down. Right, so there are number of different factors that could create a situation where a borrower may choose that they want to go that way, a borrower could also say I want to put down 3% not 3.5%, a borrower could say I don’t want to pay the upfront premium, which is going to get financed in and I’m going to pay interest on it for the life of the loan. So I think there are a number of different judgments and dynamics that a borrower can make and I don’t think that a decision on disparate impact is going to affect the ability for the borrower to choose the right product for him or her.

Great, thank you. And then just a follow-up on the singles, I mean, you mentioned that you like a mix of singles and monthlies, how much of that is being also just sort of your current mix being driven by the originators or preferences as well as your own?

Oh, there is no question that it’s largely I think driven by the originators, preference. So you have some originators that use them very sparingly, you have others that that’s a big part of the business that they have. Sometimes that relates to the amount of refis that those lenders typically do versus purchase business. So I think it’s driven by that quite a bit. Having said that we consistently talk to lenders about the use of DP and having kind of a balanced.

Great, thank you Teressa.

Sure.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen and this is the last question in the queue. We’re turning the conference back over to S.A. Ibrahim. Please go ahead.

Thank you all for your questions. And now I would like to, before we end the call, take a moment thank Bob for his exceptional contribution to Radian over a career that has spanned Radian’s entire life. For the last ten years, Bob worked at my side as our CFO in what can in historical terms be considered the most challenging times we’ve faced. To all this Bob’s loyalty and dedication to Radian, his commitment to putting our shareholders first, his understanding of our customers and counterparties and his deep empathy for Radian employees helped us to overcome our challenges and cease opportunities that made us who we are today. Towards all of these Bob’s sense of humor kept us from getting discouraged. I don’t know how we could have made it without Bob. I take comfort in knowing that Bob will be thoroughly enjoying more free time and that his legacy of building lasting relationships based on trust and unfaltering integrity will always be with us at Radian. Thank you, Bob, we will surely miss you. And thank you all for participating in our call.