Edgar Filing: GENWORTH FINANCIAL INC

Large accelerated filer

Accelerated filer

Non-accelerated filer

Smaller reporting company

10-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

x	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014

¨	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission file number 001-32195

LOGO

GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware

80-0873306

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

6620 West Broad Street

Richmond, Virginia

23230

(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)

(804) 281-6000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act


Title of Each Class		Name of each exchange on which registered
Class A Common Stock, par value $.001 per share		New York Stock Exchange

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act

None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ¨ No x

As of February 12, 2015, 496,996,382 shares of Class A Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share were outstanding.

The aggregate market value of the common equity (based on the closing price of the Class A Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange) held by non-affiliates of the registrant on June 30, 2014, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $8.6 billion. All executive officers and directors of the registrant have been deemed, solely for the purpose of the foregoing calculation, to be “affiliates” of the registrant.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Certain portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement pursuant to Regulation 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the 2015 annual meeting of the registrant’s stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents


		Page
PART I
Item 1.	Business		4
Item 1A.	Risk Factors		60
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments		99
Item 2.	Properties		99
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings		99
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures		99

PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities		100
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data		102
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		105
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk		214
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data		221
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure		366
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures		366
Item 9B.	Other Information		369

PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance		370
Item 11.	Executive Compensation		375
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters		375
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence		375
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services		375

PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules		376

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, including Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, contains certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements may be identified by words such as “expects,” “intends,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “will,” or words of similar meaning and include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the outlook for our future business and financial performance. Forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions, which are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements due to global political, economic, business, competitive, market, regulatory and other factors and risks, including the items identified under “Part I—Item 1A—Risk Factors.” We therefore caution you against relying on any forward-looking statements.

We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.

PART I

Item 1.

Business

Overview

Genworth Holdings, Inc. (“Genworth Holdings”) (formerly known as Genworth Financial, Inc.) was incorporated in Delaware in 2003 in preparation for an initial public offering (“IPO”) of Genworth common stock, which was completed on May 28, 2004. On April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct, 100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, under the name Sub XLVI, Inc., and was renamed Genworth Financial, Inc. (“Genworth Financial”) upon the completion of the reorganization.

We are dedicated to helping meet the insurance, retirement and homeownership needs of our customers, with a presence in more than 25 countries. We are headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. We offer individual and group long-term care insurance products to meet growing consumer needs for long-term care. Our life insurance products protect people during unexpected events. In the United States, retirement products include various types of annuity and guaranteed retirement income products. We facilitate homeownership in the United States and internationally by providing mortgage insurance products that allow people to purchase homes with low down payments while protecting lenders against the risk of default. Through our homeownership education and assistance programs, we also help people keep their homes when they experience financial difficulties. Our lifestyle protection insurance business provides payment protection coverages in several international markets to help consumers meet specified payment obligations in time of need.

We operate through three divisions: U.S. Life Insurance, Global Mortgage Insurance and Corporate and Other. The U.S. Life Insurance Division includes the U.S. Life Insurance segment. The Global Mortgage Insurance Division includes the International Mortgage Insurance and U.S. Mortgage Insurance segments. The Corporate and Other Division includes the International Protection and Runoff segments and Corporate and Other activities. The following reflects a discussion of our operating segments:

•

U.S. Life Insurance. We offer and manage a variety of insurance and fixed annuity products in the United States. Our primary products include long-term care insurance, life insurance and fixed annuities. For the year ended December 31, 2014, our U.S. Life Insurance segment had a net loss available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders and a net operating loss of $1,405 million and $641 million, respectively.

•

International Mortgage Insurance. We are a leading provider of mortgage insurance products and related services in Canada and Australia and also participate in select European and other countries. Our products predominantly insure prime-based, individually underwritten residential mortgage loans, also known as flow mortgage insurance. We also selectively provide mortgage insurance on a structured, or bulk, basis that aids in the sale of mortgages to the capital markets and helps lenders manage capital and risk. Additionally, we offer services, analytical tools and technology that enable lenders to operate efficiently and manage risk. For the year ended December 31, 2014, our International Mortgage Insurance segment’s net income available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders and net operating income were $169 million and $345 million, respectively.

•

U.S. Mortgage Insurance. In the United States, we offer mortgage insurance products predominantly insuring prime-based, individually underwritten residential mortgage loans, also known as flow mortgage insurance. We selectively provide mortgage insurance on a bulk basis with essentially all of our bulk writings being prime-based. Additionally, we offer services, analytical tools and technology that enable lenders to operate efficiently and manage risk. For the year ended December 31, 2014, our U.S. Mortgage Insurance segment’s net income available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders and net operating income was $91 million for each measure.

•

International Protection. We provide payment protection coverages (referred to as lifestyle protection) in multiple European countries and have operations in select other countries. Our lifestyle protection insurance products primarily help consumers meet specified payment obligations should they become unable to pay due to accident, illness, involuntary unemployment, disability or death. For the year ended December 31, 2014, our International Protection segment’s net income available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders and net operating income were $116 million and $8 million, respectively.

•

Runoff. The Runoff segment includes the results of non-strategic products which are no longer actively sold. Our non-strategic products primarily include our variable annuity, variable life insurance, institutional, corporate-owned life insurance and other accident and health insurance products. Institutional products consist of: funding agreements, funding agreements backing notes (“FABNs”) and guaranteed investment contracts (“GICs”). We no longer offer retail and group variable annuities but continue to service our existing blocks of business. For the year ended December 31, 2014, our Runoff segment’s net income available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders and net operating income were $14 million and $48 million, respectively.

We also have Corporate and Other activities which include debt financing expenses that are incurred at the Genworth Holdings level, unallocated corporate income and expenses, eliminations of inter-segment transactions and the results of other businesses that are managed outside of our operating segments, including discontinued operations. For the year ended December 31, 2014, Corporate and Other activities had a net loss available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders and a net operating loss of $229 million and $232 million, respectively.

We had $14.9 billion of total Genworth Financial, Inc.’s stockholders’ equity and $111.4 billion of total assets as of December 31, 2014. For the year ended December 31, 2014, our revenues were $9.6 billion and we had a net loss available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders of $1.2 billion.

Positioning for the Future

We have two core businesses: (1) U.S. Life Insurance, which includes our long-term care insurance, life insurance, and fixed annuities businesses; and (2) Global Mortgage Insurance, which includes mortgage insurance in the United States, Canada, Australia and other markets.

In our U.S. Life Insurance business, we are focused on the execution of our long-term care insurance strategy, which includes: obtaining significant premium rate increases and benefit reductions on certain of our in-force blocks of long-term care insurance to improve profitability and reduce the strain on capital; requesting smaller rate increases more proactively on newer in-force blocks of long-term care insurance as needed; and introducing new products with appropriately priced benefits.

In our Global Mortgage Insurance business, we are working to grow our businesses, with a focus on earnings growth of our U.S. mortgage insurance business, executing loss mitigation strategies, maintaining our distribution network and writing profitable new business. In addition, the government-sponsored enterprises (the “GSEs”) are currently considering changes to their respective capital standards which would impact our U.S. mortgage insurance business. We plan to address any new capital requirements once these changes are finalized primarily through reinsurance.

We have identified the following businesses as non-core: (1) lifestyle protection insurance business and (2) businesses included in our Runoff segment, which primarily consist of our variable annuity and institutional products. We are pursuing the planned sale of our lifestyle protection insurance business and we are managing our runoff businesses to maximize their value.

In the fourth quarter of 2014, we commenced a review of a broad range of strategic options to maximize long-term stockholder value. In assessing our options, we are considering, among other factors, the level of, and restrictions contained in, our existing indebtedness, tax considerations, the views of regulators and rating agencies, and the performance and prospects of our businesses. We are seeking to rebuild stockholder value through the following key initiatives:

•

Cost and portfolio rationalization. We are embarking on a multi-step restructuring plan targeting cash savings in excess of $100 million over the next two years. In addition, we are evaluating potential changes to our portfolio of businesses that we believe will improve our ability to reduce debt levels, increase capital buffers and improve earnings and return on equity.

•

Improve business performance. We strive to improve operating income and return on equity, while maintaining appropriate risk thresholds in our product offerings. We re-priced products in our long-term care, life, U.S. mortgage and lifestyle protection insurance businesses, as well as in certain of our international mortgage insurance markets. We continue to review our pricing and underwriting guidelines and make adjustments as necessary. We further reduced our mortgage insurance risk in-force in Europe (driven primarily by reductions in Ireland) and we have limited new sales to four countries where we believe the market conditions are favorable. We maintain active loss mitigation efforts in our U.S. mortgage insurance business, including pursuing appropriate loan and claim modifications, investigating loans for underwriting and master policy compliance and, where appropriate, executing loan rescissions. Additionally, we pursue targeted loss mitigation strategies in mortgage insurance markets outside the United States.

•

Capital generation and deployment. Our objective is to maintain appropriate levels of capital in the event of unforeseen events and potential in-force block volatility, while still meeting our targeted goals. We generate statutory capital from earnings on our in-force business, as well as from ongoing capital management and efficiency strategies such as use of reinsurance, management of new business mix and levels and cost reductions. We also continue to evaluate and pursue opportunities to redeploy capital from lower returning blocks of business. In our U.S. Life Insurance Division, we intend to increase capital by, among other things, at least over the near term, not paying dividends from our life insurance subsidiaries to the holding company, pursuing additional long-term care insurance rate actions, seeking opportunities to reduce risk in legacy long-term care insurance blocks of business, utilizing reinsurance to increase available capital, pursuing block transactions and significantly reducing expenses. In addition, we will manage our non-core businesses to enhance and generate capital.

•

Increase financial strength and flexibility. At Genworth Holdings, we anticipate continuing to maintain cash and highly liquid securities of at least one and one-half times debt service plus a $350 million buffer in the near term and focus on deleveraging over time. We also seek to increase financial flexibility by improving elements of our credit profile, including by reducing our debt levels, which impact our financial strength ratings.

U.S. Life Insurance Division

U.S. Life Insurance

Through our U.S. Life Insurance segment, we offer various forms of long-term care insurance, life insurance and fixed annuities.

The following table sets forth financial information regarding our U.S. Life Insurance segment as of or for the periods indicated. Additional selected financial information and operating performance measures regarding our U.S. Life Insurance segment as of or for these periods are included under “Part II—Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—U.S. Life Insurance.”


	As of or for the years ended December 31,
(Amounts in millions)	2014			2013			2012
Revenues:
Long-term care insurance	$	3,523		$	3,316		$	3,207
Life insurance		1,981			1,982			1,926
Fixed annuities		1,083			1,032			1,117

Total revenues	$	6,587		$	6,330		$	6,250

Net operating income (loss):
Long-term care insurance	$	(815	)	$	129		$	101
Life insurance		74			173			151
Fixed annuities		100			92			82

Total net operating income (loss)		(641	)		394			334
Net investment gains (losses), net		27			(1	)		(16	)
Goodwill impairment, net		(791	)		—			—
Gains (losses) on early extinguishment of debt, net		—			—			3
Gains (losses) from life block transactions, net		—			—			(47	)
Expenses related to restructuring, net		—			(9	)		—

Income (loss) from continuing operations available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders	$	(1,405	)	$	384		$	274

Total segment assets	$	82,906		$	77,261		$	79,214

Long-term care insurance

We established ourselves as a pioneer in long-term care insurance 40 years ago and remain a leading provider in the industry. Our experience helps us plan for disciplined growth built on a foundation of risk management, product innovation, a diversified distribution strategy and claims processing expertise. We believe our hedging strategies and reinsurance reduce some of the risks associated with these products.

Products

Our individual and group long-term care insurance products provide defined levels of protection against the significant and escalating costs of long-term care services provided in the insured’s home or in assisted living or nursing facilities. In contrast to health insurance, long-term care insurance provides coverage for skilled and custodial care provided outside of a hospital or health-related facility.

In July 2012, we introduced changes to our individual long-term care insurance product to improve profitability and reduce risk. Lifetime benefits coverage and limited pay options are no longer available, underwriting was further tightened and certain discounts were reduced or suspended, effectively increasing average pricing by more than 20% on the products impacted. In 2013, we introduced a product that includes

gender distinct pricing for single applicants and blood and lab underwriting requirements for all applicants. In addition, in the fourth quarter of 2013, we began filing for regulatory approval of a new product which increased premium rates but gave consumers the flexibility to choose the right fit for their long-term care needs, combined with the simplicity of prepackaged benefits. As of December 31, 2014, this new product had been launched in 45 states. In the fourth quarter of 2014, we began filing for regulatory approval of an amended product to improve competitiveness, while meeting our targeted returns, by, among other things, reducing premium rates and adjusting coverage options. As of December 31, 2014, this amended product was filed in 38 states through the Interstate Insurance Compact. In 2015, the product either was, or we expect will be, directly filed in additional states. During the fourth quarter of 2014, we suspended sales of our individual long-term care insurance products in Massachusetts and New Hampshire because we were unable to obtain satisfactory rates and rate increases on in-force policies. We had previously suspended sales of our individual long-term care insurance products in Vermont. Effective June 1, 2013, we also no longer offer AARP-branded long-term care insurance products.

Underwriting and pricing

We employ medical underwriting procedures to assess and quantify risks before we issue our individual long-term care insurance policies, similar to, but separate from, those we use in underwriting life insurance products. Our group long-term care insurance product utilizes various underwriting processes, including modified guaranteed underwriting for actively at work employees, simplified underwriting for spouses of actively at work employees and full medical underwriting for employees outside their enrollment window, retirees or others.

We have accumulated extensive pricing and claims experience, and believe we have the largest claims database in the industry. The overall financial performance of our long-term care insurance business depends primarily on the accuracy of our pricing assumptions, including for claims experience, morbidity and mortality experience, persistency and investment yields. Our claims database provides us with substantial data that has helped us develop pricing methodologies for our newer policies. We tailor pricing based on segmented risk categories, including couples, gender, medical history and other factors. Financial performance on older policies issued without the full benefit of this experience has been lower than initially assumed in pricing of those blocks. We continually monitor trends and developments and update assumptions that may affect the risk, pricing and profitability of our long-term care insurance products and adjust our new product pricing and other terms, as appropriate. We also work with a medical advisory board comprised of independent experts from the medical field that provides insights on emerging morbidity and medical trends, enabling us to be more proactive in our risk segmentation, pricing and product development strategies.

As part of our strategy for our long-term care insurance business, we have been implementing, and expect to continue to pursue, significant premium rate increases on the older generation blocks of business that were written before 2002 in order to bring those blocks closer to a break-even point over time and reduce the strain on our earnings and capital. We are also requesting premium rate increases on newer blocks of business, as needed, to help bring their loss ratios back towards their original pricing and introducing new products that are underwritten and priced to reflect our recent experience and updated assumptions.

In the third quarter of 2012, we initiated a round of long-term care insurance in-force premium rate increases with an expectation of achieving an average premium increase in excess of 50% on three policy series of older generation policies and an average premium increase in excess of 25% on one early series of new generation policies. Subject to regulatory approval, this premium rate increase is expected to generate approximately $250 million to $300 million of additional annual premiums when fully implemented over the next several years. Reserve levels, and thus our expected profitability, have been impacted, and we expect they will continue to be impacted, by policyholder behavior which could include taking reduced benefits or non-forfeiture options within their policy coverage. The goal of our rate actions is to mitigate losses on the three older generation policy series and help offset higher than priced-for loss ratios due to unfavorable business mix and lower lapse rates than expected on one newer generation product, with returns lower than original expectations.

In the third quarter of 2013, we began filing for regulatory approval for premium rate increases ranging between 6% and 13% on more than $800 million in annualized in-force premiums on another series of new generation policies. As of December 31, 2014, we have been notified by 30 states of their initial decision, of which 22 states approved all or part of the requested increase. We continue to pursue these rate increases in the states that have either not responded or initially denied our rate increase request.

The approval process for in-force rate increases and the amount and timing of the rate increases approved varies by state. In certain states, the decision to approve or disapprove a rate increase can take several years. Upon approval, insureds are provided with written notice of the increase and increases are generally applied on the insured’s next policy anniversary date. Therefore, the benefits of any rate increase are not fully realized until the implementation cycle is complete. For certain risks related to our long-term care insurance premiums and rate increases, see “Item 1A—Risk Factors—We may not be able to increase premiums or reduce benefits on our in-force long-term care insurance policies by enough or quickly enough and the rate actions or reduced benefits currently being implemented and any future rate actions may adversely affect demand for our long-term care insurance products, our reputation in the market, our results of operations and our financial condition.”

Distribution

We distribute our long-term care insurance products through diversified sales channels consisting of appointed independent producers, financial intermediaries and dedicated sales specialists. We have made significant investments in our servicing and support for both independent and dedicated sales specialists.

Competition

Competition in the long-term care insurance industry is primarily from a limited segment of insurance companies. Our products compete by providing consumers with an array of long-term care coverage solutions, coupled with long-term care support services. We offer a diverse product portfolio with a wide range of price points and benefits designed to appeal to a broad spectrum of the population who are concerned about mitigating the costs of future long-term care needs.

Over the past several years, the competitive landscape of the long-term care insurance market has changed significantly, with several competitors announcing their intent to exit the market and several others re-entering in either targeted state markets or nationwide. Since 2012, several competitors have announced changes to their individual long-term care insurance product benefits and pricing similar to our product changes previously discussed. Continued changes in the competitive landscape of the long-term care insurance market will continue to impact our sales levels.

Life insurance

Our life insurance business provides a personal financial safety net for individuals and their families. These products provide protection against financial hardship after the death of an insured. Some of these products also offer a savings element that can help accumulate funds to meet future financial needs.

Products

Our current life insurance products include universal life insurance in the form of index universal life and linked-benefit products, combining a universal life insurance contract with a long-term care insurance rider, and term life insurance. Our universal life insurance products are designed to provide permanent protection for the

life of the insured. In addition, we also offer linked-benefits riders for all of our current indexed universal life products for customers who have traditionally self-funded long-term care risk or seek multiple benefits.

We launched our first indexed universal life product, Asset Builder IUL, in the second quarter of 2013. This product was developed to provide the opportunity for greater policy value growth by linking the crediting strategy to an equity market index while protecting against negative market returns by flooring the crediting rate at 0% even if the index experiences a negative return. Monthly charges and fees will continue regardless of the crediting rate and will reduce policy value. In December 2013, we launched our second indexed universal life insurance product, Foundation Builder IUL, designed to offer affordable death benefit protection plus the opportunity to build cash value. Since launching Foundation Builder in 2013, we have re-priced the product and added features to make it more competitive and we plan on doing the same for our Asset Builder IUL product.

Our term life insurance products provide coverage with guaranteed level premiums for a specified period of time and generally have little or no buildup of cash value. We also have in-force blocks of term universal life and whole life insurance; however, we no longer solicit sales of these products.

Underwriting and pricing

Underwriting and pricing are significant drivers of profitability in our life insurance business, and we have established underwriting and pricing practices. We generally reinsure risks in excess of $5 million per individual life policy. We set pricing assumptions for expected claims, lapses, investment returns, expenses and customer demographics based on our historical experience and other factors.

We target individuals primarily in standard or better risk categories, which include individuals who generally have family histories that do not present increased mortality risk. We also have expertise in evaluating applicants with health problems and offer coverage based on pre-established underwriting criteria.

Distribution

We offer life insurance products through an extensive network of independent brokerage general agencies (“BGAs”) throughout the United States and through financial intermediaries and insurance marketing organizations.

Competition

In our life insurance business, we compete against several life insurance companies, including several companies with overall stronger financial strength ratings. The life insurance market is highly fragmented. Some of these competitors have multiple access points to the market through BGAs, financial institutions, career sales agents, multi-line exclusive agents, e-retail and other life insurance distributors. We operate primarily in the BGA channel and have built additional capabilities in other channels. We have a long history of serving the life insurance market with a reputation for service and significant mortality experience.

Fixed annuities

We are focused on helping individuals create dependable income streams for life or for a specified period of time and helping them save and invest to achieve financial goals. We believe our product designs, investment strategy, hedging disciplines and use of reinsurance reduce some of the risks associated with these products.

Products

Single premium deferred annuities

We offer fixed single premium deferred annuities which require a single premium payment at time of issue and provide an accumulation period and an annuity payout period. The annuity payout period in these products may be either a defined number of years, the annuitant’s lifetime or the longer of a defined number of years and the annuitant’s lifetime. During the accumulation period, we credit the account value of the annuity with interest earned at a crediting rate guaranteed for no less than one year at issue, but which may be guaranteed for up to seven years, and thereafter is subject to annual crediting rate resets at our discretion. The crediting rate is based upon many factors including prevailing market rates, spreads and targeted returns, subject to statutory and contractual minimums. The majority of our fixed single premium deferred annuity contractholders retain their contracts for five to ten years.

We also offer fixed indexed annuities as part of our product suite of single premium deferred annuities. Fixed indexed annuities provide an annual crediting rate that is based on the performance of a defined external index rather than a rate that is declared by the insurance company. The external index we use is the S&P 500^®. We currently offer five separate index crediting strategies, each of which credits interest based on how the index performs and the limit for that strategy. In addition, we also offer multiple fixed interest rate options.

Single premium immediate annuities

We offer single premium immediate annuities which provide a fixed amount of income for either a defined number of years, the annuitant’s lifetime or the longer of a defined number of years and the annuitant’s lifetime in exchange for a single premium.

Structured settlements

Structured settlement annuity contracts provide an alternative to a lump sum settlement, generally in a personal injury lawsuit or workers compensation claim, and typically are purchased by property and casualty insurance companies for the benefit of an injured claimant. The structured settlements provide scheduled payments over a fixed period or, in the case of a life-contingent structured settlement, for the life of the claimant with a guaranteed minimum period of payments. In 2006, we discontinued sales of our structured settlement annuities while continuing to service our retained and reinsured blocks of business.

Distribution

We distribute our fixed annuity products through BGAs, independent broker/dealers and select banks and national brokerage and financial firms.

Competition

We compete with a large number of life insurance companies in the fixed annuity marketplace. Overall sales of fixed annuities are related to current interest rate yield curves, which affect the relative competitiveness of alternative products, such as certificates of deposit and money market funds. We have experienced fluctuations in sales levels for these products and we may experience fluctuations in the future based on changes in interest rates and other factors including our ability to achieve desired targeted returns. Following adverse rating actions in the fourth quarter of 2014, several of our distributors suspended distribution of our products. Those distributors made up approximately 16% of the sales of our fixed annuity products. We expect that our sales will continue to be adversely impacted by our current ratings.

Global Mortgage Insurance Division

International Mortgage Insurance

Through our International Mortgage Insurance segment, we are a leading provider of mortgage insurance in Canada and Australia and also participate in select European and other countries. We have a presence in 15 countries. We expanded our international operations beginning in the mid-1990s and, today, we believe we are the largest overall provider of private mortgage insurance outside of the United States.

Private mortgage insurance enables borrowers to buy homes with low-down-payment mortgages, which are usually defined as loans with a down payment of less than 20% of the home’s value. Low-down-payment mortgages are also referred to as high loan-to-value mortgages. Mortgage insurance protects lenders against loss in the event of a borrower’s default. It also generally aids financial institutions in managing their capital and risk profile in particular by reducing the capital required for low-down-payment mortgages. If a borrower defaults on mortgage payments, private mortgage insurance reduces and may eliminate losses to the insured institution. Private mortgage insurance may also facilitate the sale of mortgage loans in the secondary mortgage market.

The following table sets forth financial information regarding our International Mortgage Insurance segment as of or for the periods indicated. Additional selected financial information and operating performance measures regarding our International Mortgage Insurance segment as of or for these periods are included under “Part II—Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations— International Mortgage Insurance.”


	As of or for the years ended December 31,
(Amounts in millions)	2014			2013			2012
Revenues:
Canada	$	669		$	760		$	786
Australia		537			555			567
Other Countries		34			46			55

Total revenues	$	1,240		$	1,361		$	1,408

Net operating income (loss):
Canada	$	170		$	170		$	234
Australia		200			228			142
Other Countries		(25	)		(37	)		(34	)

Total net operating income		345			361			342
Net investment gains (losses), net		—			12			7
Gains (losses) on early extinguishment of debt, net		(2	)		—			—
Tax impact from potential business portfolio changes		(174	)		—			—
Expenses related to restructuring, net		—			(1	)		—

Income from continuing operations available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders		169			372			349
Add: net income attributable to noncontrolling interests		196			154			200

Net income	$	365		$	526		$	549

Total segment assets	$	8,815		$	9,194		$	10,063

The mortgage loan markets in Canada and Australia are well developed, and mortgage insurance plays an important role in each of these markets. However, these markets vary significantly and are influenced by different economic, public policy, regulatory, distributor, credit, demographic and cultural conditions.

We believe the following factors have contributed to mortgage insurance demand in these countries:

•

a desire by lenders to offer low-down-payment mortgage loans;

•

the recognition of the higher default risk inherent in low-down-payment lending and the need for specialized underwriting expertise to conduct this business prudently;

•

government housing policies that support a high level of homeownership;

•

government policies that support the use of securitization and secondary market mortgage sales, in which third-party credit enhancement is often used to facilitate funding and liquidity for mortgage lending; and

•

bank regulatory capital policies that provide incentives to Canadian lenders and certain Australian lenders to transfer some or all of the default risk on low-down-payment mortgages to third parties, such as mortgage insurers.

Based upon our experience in these mature markets, we believe a favorable regulatory framework is important to the development of high loan-to-value lending and the use of products such as mortgage insurance to protect against default risk or to obtain capital relief. As a result, we have advocated government and policymaking agencies throughout our markets to adopt legislative and regulatory policies supporting increased homeownership and the use of private mortgage insurance. We have significant expertise in mature markets, and we leverage this experience in selected developing markets to encourage regulatory authorities to implement incentives to use private mortgage insurance as an important element of their housing finance systems.

We believe the revisions to a set of regulatory rules and procedures governing global bank capital standards that were introduced by the Basel Committee of the Bank for International Settlements, recently revised to strengthen regulatory capital requirements for banks and now referred to as Basel III, may impact the use of mortgage insurance as a risk and capital management tool in international markets. While Basel III was issued in December 2010, its adoption by individual countries internationally and in the United States has not concluded. Changes in national implementation could occur which might aid or detract from future demand for mortgage insurance.

Mortgage insurance in our International Mortgage Insurance segment is predominantly single premium and provides 100% coverage in the two largest markets, Canada and Australia. With single premium policies, the premium is usually included as part of the aggregate loan amount and paid to us as the mortgage insurer. We record the proceeds to unearned premium reserves, invest those proceeds and recognize the premiums over time in accordance with the expected pattern of risk emergence.

Canada

We entered the Canadian mortgage insurance market in 1995 and operate in every province and territory. We are currently the leading private mortgage insurer in the Canadian market. Residential mortgage financing in Canada is concentrated in the country’s largest five banks and a limited number of other mortgage originators. The majority of our business in Canada comes from this group of residential mortgage originators. For example, two major lender customers (defined as lenders that individually account for more than 10% of gross written premiums in our Canadian mortgage insurance business), together, represented 26% of total gross written premiums in our Canadian mortgage insurance business for the year ended December 31, 2014.

In July 2009, Genworth MI Canada Inc. (“Genworth Canada”), our indirect subsidiary, completed the initial public offering (the “Offering”) of its common shares. Following completion of the Offering, we beneficially owned 57.5% of the common shares of Genworth Canada. Since the Offering, Genworth Canada has completed several share repurchases in which Genworth has participated proportionately to maintain its ownership. We currently hold approximately 57.3% of the outstanding common shares of Genworth Canada on a consolidated basis, with Brookfield Life Assurance Company Limited (“Brookfield”) holding 40.6% and our U.S. mortgage insurance business holding 16.7%. In addition, Brookfield has the right, exercisable at its discretion, to purchase for cash the common shares of Genworth Canada held by our U.S. mortgage insurance companies at the then-

current market price. Brookfield also has a right of first refusal with respect to the transfer of these common shares of Genworth Canada by the U.S. mortgage insurance companies. See note 24 in our consolidated financial statements under “Part II—Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for additional information.

Products

Our main products are primary flow insurance and portfolio credit enhancement insurance. Regulations in Canada require the use of mortgage insurance for all mortgage loans extended by federally incorporated banks, trust companies and insurers, where the loan-to-value ratio exceeds 80%. Most mortgage lenders in Canada offer a portability feature, which allows borrowers to transfer their original mortgage loan to a new property, subject to certain criteria. Our flow insurance policies contain a portability feature which allows borrowers to also transfer the mortgage default insurance associated with the mortgage loan.

We also provide portfolio credit enhancement insurance to lenders that have originated loans with loan-to-value ratios of less than or equal to 80%. These policies provide lenders with immediate capital relief from applicable bank regulatory capital requirements and facilitate the securitization of mortgages in the Canadian market.

In both primary flow insurance and portfolio policies, our mortgage insurance in Canada provides insurance coverage for the entire unpaid loan balance, including interest, selling costs and expenses. In the 2013 federal budget, the Canadian government proposed to gradually limit the insurance of low loan-to-value mortgages to only those mortgages that will be used in government backed securitization programs. We are in dialogue with the Canadian government as it designs the structure to implement the proposed changes. The final impact of these proposed changes on our business cannot be assessed at this time.

Government guarantee

We had an agreement with the Canadian government (the “Government Guarantee Agreement”) under which it guaranteed the benefits payable under a mortgage insurance policy, less 10% of the original principal amount of an insured loan, in the event that we fail to make claim payments with respect to that loan because of insolvency. We paid the Canadian government a risk premium for this guarantee and made other payments to the government guarantee fund, a reserve fund in respect of the government’s obligation. Because banks are not required to maintain regulatory capital on an asset backed by a sovereign guarantee, our 90% sovereign guarantee permits lenders purchasing our mortgage insurance to reduce their regulatory capital charges for credit risks on mortgages by 90%. Our primary government-sponsored competitor receives a 100% sovereign guarantee.

The Canadian government passed the Protection of Residential Mortgage or Hypothecary Insurance Act (Canada) (“PRMHIA”) in 2011 and PRMHIA came into force on January 1, 2013. The purpose of PRMHIA was to formalize existing mortgage insurance arrangements with private mortgage insurers and terminate the Government Guarantee Agreement, including the elimination of the Canadian government guarantee fund. The amount held in the Canadian government guarantee fund reverted back to us on January 1, 2013. See “Part II—Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations— International Mortgage Insurance” for additional information regarding the elimination of the Canadian government guarantee fund. As a result of the elimination of the guarantee fund, we are required to hold higher regulatory capital under PRMHIA and the Insurance Companies Act of Canada. However, the increase in required capital was predominantly offset by the increase in available capital that results from the guarantee fund assets that reverted back to us.

Under PRMHIA, all new mortgages that we insure and all mortgages that were previously insured and covered by the Government Guarantee Agreement will continue to be covered by the same 90% level of government guarantee under PRMHIA. The maximum outstanding insured exposure for private insured mortgages was increased from CAD$250.0 billion to CAD$300.0 billion and the risk fee that we and other

private mortgage insurers pay to the Canadian government is equal to 2.25% of gross premiums written for private mortgage insurers. Under PRMHIA, our direct insurance activities continue to be restricted to insuring mortgages that meet the government mortgage insurance eligibility. Our reinsurance business is not subject to PRMHIA restrictions.

Over the past several years, the Canadian government also implemented a series of revisions to the rules for government guaranteed mortgages aimed at strengthening Canada’s housing finance system and ensuring the long-term stability of the Canadian housing market. Under PRMHIA, the regulations establish the following criteria a high loan-to-value mortgage has to meet in order to be insured:

•

a maximum mortgage amortization of 25 years

•

insurance of refinanced mortgage limited to loans with a loan-to-value of 80% or less

•

capping the maximum gross debt service ratios at 39% and total debt service ratios at 44%

•

capping home purchase price to less than $1 million

•

setting a minimum credit score of 600

We have incorporated these adjustments into our underwriting guidelines.

Competition

Our primary mortgage insurance competitor in Canada is the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (“CMHC”) which is owned by the Canadian government, although we have one other private competitor in the Canadian market. CMHC’s mortgage insurance provides lenders with 100% capital relief from bank regulatory requirements. We compete with CMHC primarily based upon our reputation for high quality customer service, quick decision making on insurance applications, strong underwriting expertise, and provision of support services.

Australia

We entered the Australian mortgage insurance market in 1997 and subsequently entered the New Zealand mortgage insurance market. In 2014, we were a leading provider of mortgage insurance in Australia based upon flow new insurance written. We maintain strong relationships within the major bank and regional bank channels, as well as building societies, credit unions and non-bank mortgage originators called mortgage managers. The four largest mortgage originators in Australia provide the majority of the financing for residential mortgage financing in that country. Our Australian mortgage insurance business is concentrated in a small number of key customers. For the year ended December 31, 2014, approximately 54% and 64% of our new insurance written and gross written premiums, respectively, in our Australian mortgage insurance business was attributable to our largest three customers, with the largest customer representing 32% and 39% of new insurance written and gross written premiums, respectively, in our Australian mortgage insurance business during that year. Subsequent to December 31, 2014, one of our three largest customers notified us that it was terminating its relationship with respect to new business effective May 2015. For the year ended December 31, 2014, this customer represented 10% and 14% of new insurance written and gross written premiums, respectively. The term of the current supply and service contract with our largest customer expires on December 31, 2016, unless it is terminated earlier in certain circumstances, including, among other things, a downgrade of the financial strength rating of our principal mortgage insurance subsidiary in Australia by Standard & Poor’s Financial Services, LLC (“S&P”) to below “A-” (subject to certain exceptions). The term of the current supply and service contract with our next remaining largest customer expires on September 30, 2015. This contract may be terminated by either party by giving 90 days’ written notice.

During 2011, we ceased writing new business in New Zealand, although we provided for a limited period of time flow insurance on top-up loans, which allowed a borrower to extend the credit limit on an existing loan. We no longer write any new business in New Zealand, including with respect to top-up loans. New Zealand represented approximately 2% of our insurance in-force for our mortgage insurance business in Australia as of December 31, 2014.

On May 15, 2014, Genworth Mortgage Insurance Australia Limited (“Genworth Australia”), a holding company for Genworth’s Australian mortgage insurance business, priced its IPO of 220,000,000 of its ordinary shares at an initial public offering price of AUD$2.65 per ordinary share. The offering closed on May 21, 2014. Following completion of the offering, Genworth Financial beneficially owns 66.2% of the ordinary shares of Genworth Australia. See note 24 in our consolidated financial statements under “Part II—Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for additional information.

In Australia, there is concentration among a small group of banks that write most of the mortgages. These banks continue to evaluate the utilization of mortgage insurance in connection with the implementation of the bank capital standards in Australia introduced by the Basel Committee, and this could impact both the size of the private mortgage insurance market in Australia and our market share. The response of banks to the new capital standards will develop over time and this response could impact our Australian mortgage insurance business.

Products

In Australia, our main products are primary flow mortgage insurance, also known as lenders mortgage insurance (“LMI”), and portfolio credit enhancement policies. Our principal product is LMI which is similar to single premium primary flow insurance we offer in Canada with 100% coverage. Unlike in Canada, LMI policies are not portable in Australia. Lenders remit the single premium to us as the mortgage insurer following settlement of the loan and, generally, either collect the equivalent amount from the borrower at the time the loan proceeds are advanced or capitalize it in the loan.

Banks, building societies and credit unions generally acquire LMI only for residential mortgage loans with loan-to-value ratios above 80%. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (“APRA”) regulations for authorized deposit-taking institutions (“ADIs”) using the standard Basel II approach provide reduced capital requirements for high loan-to-value residential mortgages if they have been insured by a mortgage insurance company regulated by APRA. The capital levels for Australian internal ratings-based ADIs are determined by their APRA-approved internal ratings-based models, which may or may not allocate capital credit for LMI. We believe that APRA and the internal ratings-based ADIs have not yet finalized internal models for residential mortgage risk, so we do not believe that the internal ratings-based ADIs currently benefit from an explicit reduction in their capital requirements for mortgages covered by mortgage insurance. APRA’s insurance authorization conditions require Australian mortgage insurance companies, including ours, to be monoline insurers, which are insurance companies that offer just one type of insurance product.

We also provide portfolio credit enhancement policies mainly to APRA-regulated lenders who intend to securitize Australian residential loans they have originated. Portfolio mortgage insurance serves as an important source of credit enhancement for the Australian securitization market, and our portfolio credit enhancement coverage is generally purchased for low loan-to-value, seasoned loans, and accounted for approximately 3% of new insurance written in our Australian mortgage insurance business for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Competition

The Australian flow mortgage insurance market is primarily served by us and one other private mortgage insurance company, as well as various lender-affiliated captive mortgage insurance companies. In addition, some lenders may self-insure certain high loan-to-value mortgage risks. We compete primarily based upon our reputation for high quality customer service, quick decision making on insurance applications, strong underwriting expertise and flexibility in terms of product development and provision of support services.

Other Countries

We began our European operations in the United Kingdom, which is Europe’s largest market for mortgage loan originations, and over time have expanded our presence to additional countries. We are a large private mortgage insurance provider in Europe and have a leading market presence in select markets, based upon flow

new insurance written. Since 2009, we have reduced our risk in-force in Europe, driven primarily by reductions in Spain and Ireland as a result of our loss mitigation activities, inclusive of normal course settlements. Currently, we write new business in the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany and Finland. We are no longer writing new business in Spain and Ireland, which represented approximately 1% of our insurance in-force in our international mortgage insurance business and 18% of our insurance in-force in Other Countries as of December 31, 2014. Additionally, we have a presence in the private mortgage insurance market in Mexico, maintain a license in Korea with a small portfolio currently in runoff and continue to selectively assess other markets as well.

During the second quarter of 2012, we became a minority shareholder of a newly-formed joint venture partnership in India. The joint venture offers mortgage guarantees against borrower defaults on housing loans from mortgage lenders in India. The financial impact of this joint venture was minimal during 2012, 2013 and 2014.

Products

Our mortgage insurance products in Europe consist principally of primary flow insurance with single premium payments. Our primary flow insurance generally provides first-loss coverage in the event of default on a portion (typically 10% to 20%) of the balance of an individual mortgage loan and our flow insurance policies are not portable. We also offer portfolio credit enhancement to facilitate the securitization of mortgage loans.

Competition

Our competition in Europe includes both public and private entities, including traditional insurance companies, as well as providers of alternative credit enhancement products and public mortgage guarantee facilities. Competition from alternative credit enhancement products include personal guarantees on high loan-to-value loans, second mortgages and bank guarantees, captive insurance companies organized by lenders, and alternative forms of risk transfer including capital markets solutions. We believe that our global expertise and coverage flexibility differentiate us from competitors and alternative products.

Underwriting

Loan applications for all flow loans we insure are reviewed to evaluate each individual borrower’s credit strength and history, the characteristics of the loan and the value of the underlying property. The credit strength of a borrower is evaluated by reviewing his or her credit history and credit score. Unlike in the United States where Fair Isaac Company (“FICO”) credit scores are broadly used, credit scores are not available in all countries. In countries, such as Canada, where scores are available, they are included in the underwriting guidelines used to evaluate the loan. Internal mortgage scoring models are also used in the underwriting processes of Canada and Australia. In addition, risk rules models, such as Blaze Advisor^®, are used in Australia and Mexico to enhance the underwriter’s ability to evaluate the loan risk and make consistent underwriting decisions. Additional tools used by our international businesses include automated valuation models to evaluate property risk and fraud application prevention and management tools such as ModelMax^® and Interceptor^TM in Australia and Citadel^TM in Canada.

Loan applications for flow mortgage insurance are reviewed by our employees or by employees of qualified mortgage lender customers who underwrite loan applications for mortgage insurance under a delegated underwriting program. This delegated underwriting program permits approved lenders to commit us to insure loans using underwriting guidelines we have previously approved. Each of our mortgage insurance platforms has established an audit plan to review delegated underwritten loans to ensure compliance with the approved underwriting guidelines, operational procedures and master policy requirements. Samples (statistically valid and/or stratified) of performing loans are requested and reviewed by our audit teams. Once an audit review has been completed, findings are summarized and evaluated against targets. If non-compliance issues are detected, we work with the lender to develop appropriate corrective actions which may include rescinding coverage on non-compliant loans or discontinuing delegated underwriting.

When underwriting bulk insurance transactions, we evaluate characteristics of the loans in the portfolio and examine loan files on a sample basis. Loans that do not meet the approved bulk parameters are removed from the transaction. Each bulk transaction is assigned an overall claim rate based on a weighted-average of the expected claim rates for each stratified group of loans with similar characteristics that comprises the transaction.

Since 2009, we have taken additional actions to reduce our new business risk profile, which included: tightening underwriting guidelines, product restrictions, reducing new business in geographic areas we believe are more economically sensitive, and terminating commercial relationships as a result of weaker business performance. We have also increased prices in certain markets based on periodic reviews of product performance. We believe these underwriting and pricing actions have improved our performance on new books of business.

Loss mitigation

Each of our international mortgage insurance platforms works closely with lenders to identify and monitor delinquent borrowers. When a delinquency cannot be cured through basic collections, we will work with the lender and, if permitted, with the borrower to identify an optimal loan workout solution. If it is determined that the borrower has the capacity to make a modified mortgage payment, we will work with the lender to implement the most appropriate payment plan to address the borrower’s hardship situation. If the borrower does not have the capacity to make payments on a modified loan, we work with the lender and borrower to sell the property at the best price to minimize the severity of our claim and provide the borrower with a reasonable resolution. In Canada, we continue to execute a strategy to accelerate and facilitate the conveyance of real estate properties to us in selected circumstances. This strategy allows for better control of the remediation and marketing processes, reduction in carrying costs during the sale process and potential realization of a higher sales price with the cumulative impact being lower losses.

After a delinquency is reported to us, or after a claim is received, we review, and where appropriate conduct further investigations, to determine if there has been an event of underwriting non-compliance, non-disclosure of relevant information or any misrepresentation of information provided during the underwriting process. Our master policies provide that we may rescind coverage if there has been any failure to comply with agreed underwriting criteria or in the event of fraud or misrepresentation involving the lender or an agent of the lender. If such issues are identified, the claim or delinquent loan file is reviewed to determine the appropriate action, including potentially reducing the claim amount to be paid or rescinding the coverage. Generally, the issues we have initially identified are reviewed with the lender and the lender has an opportunity to provide further information or documentation to resolve the issue.

We may also review a group or portfolio of insured loans if we believe there may be systemic misrepresentations or non-compliance issues. If such issues are detected, we generally will work with the lender to develop an agreed settlement in respect of the group of loans so identified or, if such discussions fail to result in an agreed settlement, the lender may institute arbitration or other legal proceedings with respect to the loans for which we have rescinded or reduced coverage that are subject to the dispute. We have expanded these reviews to include collections activities in Mexico and Europe to determine compliance with our master policies. Where non-compliance is detected, we have negotiated settlements or have adjusted the claim for the impact of the servicing breach.

Distribution

We maintain dedicated sales forces that market our mortgage insurance products internationally to lenders. As in the U.S. market, our sales forces market to financial institutions and mortgage originators, who in turn offer mortgage insurance products to borrowers.

U.S. Mortgage Insurance

Through our U.S. Mortgage Insurance segment, we provide private mortgage insurance. Private mortgage insurance enables borrowers to buy homes with low-down-payment mortgages, which are usually defined as

loans with a down payment of less than 20% of the home’s value. Low-down-payment mortgages are sometimes also referred to as high loan-to-value mortgages. Mortgage insurance protects lenders against loss in the event of a borrower’s default. It also generally aids financial institutions in managing their capital efficiently by, in some cases, reducing the capital required for low-down-payment mortgages. If a borrower defaults on mortgage payments, private mortgage insurance reduces and may eliminate losses to the insured institution. Private mortgage insurance may also facilitate the sale of mortgage loans in the secondary mortgage market because of the credit enhancement it provides.

We have been providing mortgage insurance products and services in the United States since 1981 and operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Our principal mortgage insurance customers are originators of residential mortgage loans who typically determine which mortgage insurer or insurers they will use for the placement of mortgage insurance written on loans they originate. For the year ended December 31, 2014, approximately 26% of new insurance written in our U.S. mortgage insurance business was attributable to our largest five lender customers, with no customer representing more than 10% of new insurance written.

The U.S. private mortgage insurance industry is affected in part by the requirements and practices of the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-sponsored enterprises and we refer to them collectively as the “GSEs.” The GSEs purchase and provide guarantees on residential mortgages as part of their governmental mandate to provide liquidity through the secondary mortgage market. The GSEs may purchase mortgages with unpaid principal amounts up to a specified maximum, known as the “conforming loan limit,” which is currently $417,000 (up to $625,000 in certain high-cost geographical areas of the country) and subject to annual adjustment.

Each GSE’s Congressional charter generally prohibits it from purchasing a mortgage where the loan-to-value ratio exceeds 80% of home value unless the portion of the unpaid principal balance of the mortgage in excess of 80% of the value of the property securing the mortgage is protected against default by lender recourse, participation or by a qualified insurer. As a result, high loan-to-value mortgages purchased by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac generally are insured with private mortgage insurance. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased the majority of the flow loans we insured as of December 31, 2014. In furtherance of their respective charter requirements, each GSE has adopted eligibility criteria to establish when a mortgage insurer is qualified to issue coverage that will be acceptable to the GSEs for purchase or guarantee of high loan-to-value mortgages (the “MI Eligibility Standards”). Each GSE has issued proposed changes to their respective MI Eligibility Standards as part of the draft private mortgage insurance eligibility requirements (“PMIERs”). See “Regulation—Mortgage Insurance Regulation—Federal regulation” for additional information related to the revised draft PMIERs.

The following table sets forth selected financial information regarding our U.S. Mortgage Insurance segment as of or for the periods indicated. Additional selected financial information and operating performance measures regarding our U.S. Mortgage Insurance segment as of or for these periods are included under “Part II—Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—U.S. Mortgage Insurance.”


	As of or for the years ended December 31,
(Amounts in millions)	2014		2013		2012
Total revenues	$	639	$	616	$	676

Net operating income (loss)	$	91	$	37	$	(138	)
Net investment gains (losses), net		—		—		24

Income (loss) from continuing operations available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders	$	91	$	37	$	(114	)

Total segment assets	$	2,324	$	2,361	$	2,357

Products and services

The majority of our U.S. mortgage insurance policies provide default loss protection on a portion (typically 10% to 40%) of the balance of an individual mortgage loan. Our primary mortgage insurance policies are predominantly “flow” insurance policies, which cover individual loans at the time the loan is originated. We also from time to time enter into “bulk” insurance transactions or lender-paid insurance transactions with lenders and investors in selected instances, under which we insure individual loans on a flow basis or a portfolio of loans at or after origination for a negotiated price and terms.

In addition to flow and bulk primary mortgage insurance, we have in prior years written mortgage insurance on a pool basis. Under pool insurance, the mortgage insurer provides coverage on a group of specified loans, typically for 100% of all losses on every loan in the portfolio, subject to an agreed aggregate loss limit contemporaneously with loan origination.

Flow insurance

Flow insurance is primary mortgage insurance placed on an individual loan pursuant to the terms and conditions of a master policy. Our primary mortgage insurance covers default risk on first mortgage loans generally secured by one- to four-unit residential properties and can be used to protect mortgage lenders and investors from default on any type of residential mortgage loan instrument that we have approved. Our insurance covers a specified coverage percentage of a “claim amount” consisting of unpaid loan principal, delinquent interest and certain expenses associated with the default and subsequent foreclosure. As the insurer, we are generally required to pay the coverage percentage of a claim amount specified in the primary master policy, but we also have the option to pay the lender an amount equal to the unpaid loan principal, delinquent interest and certain expenses incurred with the default and foreclosure, and acquire title to the property. In addition, the claim amount may be reduced or eliminated if the loss on the defaulted loan is reduced as a result of the lender’s disposition of the property. The lender selects the coverage percentage at the time the loan is originated, often to comply with investor requirements to reduce the loss exposure on loans purchased by the investor. Our master policies require that loans be underwritten to approved guidelines and provide for cancellation of coverage and return of premium for material breach of obligations. Our master policies generally do not extend to or cover material breach of obligations and misrepresentations known to the insured or specified agents. From time to time, based on various factors, we request loan files to verify compliance with our master policies and required procedures. Where our review and any related investigation establish material non-compliance or misrepresentation or there is a failure to deliver complete loan files as required, we rescind coverage with a return of all premiums paid.

Effective October 1, 2014, we issued a revised Master Policy to each of our actual and prospective insureds. The new Master Policy, among other things, adopted provisions sought for inclusion by the GSEs in every master policy in use by all mortgage insurers in the industry. While these changes resulted in the modification of a significant number of terms and conditions from our prior policy, we do not believe use of the new Master Policy will have a material impact on the financial condition or results of operations of our U.S. mortgage insurance business.

We also perform fee-based contract underwriting services for mortgage lenders. The provision of underwriting services by mortgage insurers eliminates the duplicative lender and mortgage insurer underwriting activities and speeds the approval process. Under the terms of our contract underwriting agreements, we agree to indemnify the lender against losses incurred in the event we make material errors in determining whether loans processed by our contract underwriters meet specified underwriting or purchase criteria, subject to contractual limitations on liability.

In prior years, our U.S. mortgage insurance business entered into a number of reinsurance agreements in which we share portions of our flow mortgage insurance risk written on loans originated or purchased by lenders with captive reinsurers affiliated with these lenders. In return, we cede a predetermined portion of our gross premiums on insurance written to the captive reinsurers. Substantially all of our captive mortgage reinsurance

arrangements are structured on an excess of loss basis. In April 2013, we agreed under the terms and conditions of a consent order with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) not to enter into any new captive reinsurance transactions for a period of 10 years without the prior consent of the CFPB. As of December 31, 2014, our U.S. mortgage insurance risk in-force reinsured to all captive reinsurers was $86 million, and the total capital held in trust for our benefit by all captive reinsurers was $260 million. These captive reinsurers are not rated, and their claims-paying obligations to us are secured by an amount of capital held in trust as determined by the underlying treaties. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, we ceded U.S. mortgage insurance loss reserves of $24 million and $44 million, respectively, under these captive reinsurance arrangements. We have exhausted certain captive reinsurance tiers for our 2005 through 2008 book years based on loss development trends. Once the captive reinsurance or trust assets are exhausted, we are responsible for any additional losses incurred. All of our excess of loss captive reinsurance arrangements are in runoff with no new insured books of business being added going forward; however, while this level of benefit is declining, we do continue to benefit from captive reinsurance on our 2005 through 2008 books of business. New insurance written through the bulk channel generally is not subject to these arrangements.

The following table sets forth selected financial information regarding our captive reinsurance arrangements as of or for the periods indicated:


	As of or for the years ended December 31,
	2014			2013			2012
Flow risk in-force subject to captive reinsurance arrangements, as a percentage of flow risk in-force		6	%		9	%		14	%
Primary risk in-force subject to captive reinsurance arrangements, as a percentage of total primary risk in-force		6	%		9	%		14	%
Gross written premiums ceded pursuant to captive reinsurance arrangements, as a percentage of total gross written premiums		3	%		4	%		9	%
Primary new risk written subject to captive reinsurance arrangements, as a percentage of total primary new risk written		—	%		1	%		2	%

Bulk insurance

Under primary bulk insurance, we insure a portfolio of loans in a single, bulk transaction. Generally, in our bulk insurance, the individual loans in the portfolio are insured to specified levels of coverage and there may be deductible provisions and aggregate loss limits applicable to all of the insured loans. In addition, loans that we insure in bulk transactions with loan-to-value ratios above 80% typically are also covered by flow mortgage insurance, written either by us or another private mortgage insurer, which helps mitigate our exposure under the bulk transactions. We base the premium on our bulk insurance upon our evaluation of the overall risk of the insured loans included in a transaction and we negotiate the premium directly with the securitizer or other owner of the loans. Premiums for bulk transactions generally are paid monthly by lenders, investors or a securitization vehicle in connection with a securitization transaction or the sale of a loan portfolio.

Pool insurance

Pool insurance generally covers the loss on a defaulted mortgage loan that either exceeds the claim payment under the primary coverage (if primary insurance is required on that loan) or the total loss (if that loan does not require primary insurance), in each case up to a stated aggregate loss limit on the pool. We do not currently write pool insurance.

Underwriting and pricing

Fair Isaac Company developed the FICO credit scoring model to calculate a score based upon a borrower’s credit history. We use the FICO credit score as one indicator of a borrower’s credit quality. Typically, a borrower with a higher credit score has a lower likelihood of defaulting on a loan. FICO credit scores range up to 850, with a score of 620 or more generally viewed as a “prime” loan and a score below 620 generally viewed as a “sub-prime” loan. A minus loans generally are loans where the borrowers have FICO credit scores between 575 and 660, and where the borrower has a blemished credit history. As of December 31, 2014, on a risk in-force basis and at the time of loan closing, approximately 97% of our primary insurance loans were “prime” in credit quality with FICO credit scores of at least 620, approximately 2% had FICO credit scores between 575 and 619, and approximately 1% had FICO credit scores of 574 or less. Loan applications for flow mortgage insurance are either directly reviewed by us (or our contract underwriters), or as noted below, by lenders under delegated authority and either course may utilize automated underwriting systems. The majority of our mortgage lender customers underwrite loan applications for mortgage insurance under a delegated underwriting program, in which we permit approved lenders to commit us to insure loans using underwriting guidelines we have previously approved. When underwriting bulk insurance transactions, we evaluate credit scores and loan characteristics of the loans in the portfolio and examine loan files on a sample basis.

We previously offered mortgage insurance for Alt-A loans, which were originated under programs in which there was a reduced level of verification or disclosure of the borrower’s income or assets and a higher historical and expected default rate at origination than standard documentation loans; Interest Only loans, which allowed the borrower flexibility to pay interest only, or to pay interest and as much principal as desired, during an initial period of time; and payment option adjustable rate mortgages, which typically provided four payment options that a borrower could select for the first five years of a loan. Since 2007, we have made a number of adjustments to our underwriting and pricing guidelines intended to improve the risk and profitability profiles of new business written and the related effect on capital. These measures included exiting certain products and types of coverages, changing prices, product levels and underwriting guidelines, imposing geographical and third-party loan origination guidelines, refining delegated underwriting guidelines, developing specific underwriting guidelines on lower-credit and higher loan-to-value risks and adjusting restrictions on FICO and debt-to-income ratios. Sequentially, in September and October 2013, we reduced pricing and expanded underwriting guidelines that we believe are generally competitive with prevailing industry prices and guideline standards. We continue to monitor current housing conditions and the performance of our books of business to determine if we need to make further changes in our underwriting guidelines and practices.

Loss mitigation

We request loan files to verify compliance with our master policies. Our master policy gives us the right to obtain a copy of the complete loan file for any insured loan. If no file is produced in response to our request, the master policy provides that coverage may be canceled. If a file is delivered but lacks certain documents that are critical to demonstrating compliance with applicable underwriting standards (discussed below) or to our ability to investigate the loan for misrepresentation, we issue a follow-up request and give the servicer an additional period of time (approximately 30 additional days) to produce the missing documents. If these documents are not received after the additional time period, the master policy provides that coverage may be canceled.

Where underwriting is delegated to counterparties under specified criteria, our master policy requires that an insured loan be underwritten “in strict accordance” with applicable guidelines. Where our file review finds material non-compliance with the guidelines, the master policy provides that coverage may be canceled. The master policy also excludes coverage for fraud and misrepresentation, among other matters. Where our investigation establishes non-compliance or fraud or misrepresentation involving an agent of the lender, we invoke our rights by issuing a letter rescinding coverage on the loan.

Following an action to rescind coverage on insured loan certificates, we permit reconsideration of our decision to rescind such coverage through an appeals process. If an insured counterparty appeals our decision to rescind coverage on given loan certificates and we concur that new or additional information is sufficient for us

to reinstate coverage, we take the necessary steps to reinstate uninterrupted insurance coverage and reactivate the loan certificate. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within the stated appeal period provided by us and such additional time as the parties may agree to, lenders may choose to pursue arbitration or litigation under the master policies and challenge the results. If arbitrated, ultimate resolution of the dispute would be pursuant to a panel’s binding arbitration award. Challenges to rescissions may be made several years after we have rescinded coverage on an insured loan certificate. As part of our loss mitigation efforts, we routinely investigate insured loans and evaluate the related servicing to ensure compliance with applicable requirements under our master policy. As a result, from time to time, we curtail the amount of the claim payable based upon this evaluation. Curtailments are subject to the same dispute resolution procedures described above.

Estimated savings related to rescissions are the reduction in carried loss reserves, net of premium refunds and reinstatement of prior rescissions. Estimated savings related to loan modifications and other cure related loss mitigation actions represent the reduction in carried loss reserves. Estimated savings related to claims mitigation activities represent amounts deducted or “curtailed” from claims due to acts or omissions by the insured or the servicer with respect to the servicing of an insured loan that is not in compliance with obligations under our master policy. For non-cure related actions, including pre-sales, the estimated savings represent the difference between the full claim obligation and the actual amount paid. If a loan certificate that was previously rescinded is reinstated and the underlying loan certificate remains delinquent, we record an accrual for any liabilities that were relieved in connection with our decision to rescind coverage on the loan certificate. Loans subject to our loss mitigation actions, the results of which have been included in our reported estimated loss mitigation savings, are subject to re-default and may result in a potential claim in future periods.

Distribution

We distribute our mortgage insurance products through our dedicated sales force throughout the United States. This sales force primarily markets to financial institutions and mortgage originators, which impose a requirement for mortgage insurance as part of the borrower’s financing. In addition to our field sales force, we also distribute our products through a telephone sales force serving our smaller lenders, as well as through our “Action Center” which provides live phone and web chat-based support for all customer segments.

Competition

In recent years, our principal sources of competition comprised U.S. and state government agencies and other private mortgage insurers. Historically, we have also competed with mortgage lenders and other investors, the GSEs, the Federal Home Loan Banks (“FHLBs”), structured transactions in the capital markets and with other financial instruments designed to mitigate credit risk.

U.S. and state government agencies. We and other private mortgage insurers compete for flow business directly with U.S. federal and state governmental and quasi-governmental agencies, principally the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) and, to a lesser degree, the Veteran’s Administration (“VA”). In addition to competition from the FHA and the VA, we and other private mortgage insurers face competition from state-supported mortgage insurance funds in several states, including California, Illinois and New York.

Private mortgage insurers. Since the financial crisis, the competitive landscape of the U.S. private mortgage insurance industry has changed and continues to do so. Over that period, certain competitors ceased writing new business while other new entrants began writing business. While we cannot predict the level of impact, continued changes in the competitive landscape of the U.S. private mortgage insurance industry will likely impact our sales levels. The private mortgage insurance industry currently consists of seven active mortgage insurers, including us.

Mortgage lenders and other investors. We and other mortgage insurers have competed with transactions structured by mortgage lenders to avoid mortgage insurance on low-down-payment mortgage loans. These

transactions include self-insuring and simultaneous second loans, which separate a mortgage with a loan-to-value ratio of more than 80%, which in the absence of such a structure would require mortgage insurance, into two loans: a first mortgage with a loan-to-value ratio of 80% and a simultaneous second mortgage for the excess portion of the loan.

The GSEs—Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHLBs. As the predominant purchasers of conventional mortgage loans in the United States, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide a direct link between mortgage origination and capital markets. As discussed above, most high loan-to-value mortgages purchased by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac are insured with private mortgage insurance issued by an insurer deemed qualified by the GSEs. Private mortgage insurers may be subject to competition from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the extent the GSEs are compensated for assuming default risk that would otherwise be insured by the private mortgage insurance industry. In February 2011, the Obama Administration issued a white paper setting forth various proposals to gradually eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Since that date, members of Congress, various housing experts and others within the industry have also published similar proposals. We cannot predict whether or when any proposals will be implemented, and if so, in what form, nor can we predict the effect such proposals, if so implemented, would have on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

We also compete with structured transactions in the capital markets and other financial instruments designed to mitigate the risk of mortgage defaults, such as credit default swaps and credit linked notes, with reinsurers of mortgage insurance risk and with lenders who forego mortgage insurance (self-insure) on loans held in their portfolios.

The MI Eligibility Standards include specified insurance coverage levels established by the GSEs. The GSEs have the authority to change the pricing arrangements for purchasing retained-participation mortgages, or mortgages with lender recourse, as compared to insured mortgages, increase or reduce required mortgage insurance coverage percentages, and alter or liberalize underwriting standards and pricing terms on low-down-payment mortgages they purchase. In addition to the GSEs, FHLBs purchase single-family conforming mortgage loans. Although not required to do so, the FHLBs currently use mortgage insurance on substantially all mortgage loans with a loan-to-value ratio above 80%.

Corporate and Other Division

International Protection

The following table sets forth financial information regarding our International Protection segment as of or for the periods indicated. Additional selected financial information and operating performance measures regarding our International Protection segment as of or for these periods are included under “Part II—Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations— International Protection.”


	As of or for the years ended December 31,
(Amounts in millions)	2014		2013			2012
Total revenues	$	837	$	786		$	822

Net operating income	$	8	$	24		$	24
Net investment gains (losses), net		—		18			3
Goodwill impairment, net		—		—			(86	)
Tax impact from potential business portfolio changes		108		—			—
Expenses related to restructuring, net		—		(3	)		—

Income (loss) from continuing operations available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders	$	116	$	39		$	(59	)

Total segment assets	$	1,833	$	2,061		$	2,145

Lifestyle protection insurance

We currently provide lifestyle protection insurance that is principally offered by financial services companies at the point of sale of consumer products and we have a presence in more than 20 countries.

Products and services

Our lifestyle protection insurance products include primarily protection from illness, accident, involuntary unemployment, disability and death. The benefits on these policies pay the periodic payments on a consumer loan or other form of committed payment for a limited period of time, typically 12 months, though they can be up to 84 months. In some cases, for certain coverages, we may make lump sum payments. Our policies that cover disability and unemployment include an exclusion period that is usually 30 to 90 days, respectively, and a waiting period (time between claim submission and claim payment) of typically 30 days. Our policies either require an upfront single premium or monthly premiums.

We also provide third-party administrative services and administer non-risk premium with some relationships in Europe. Additionally, we have entered into structured portfolio transactions covering risks in Canada, Europe and Asia.

Underwriting and pricing

Our lifestyle protection insurance products are currently underwritten and priced on a program basis, by type of product and by distributor, rather than on an individual policyholder basis. In setting prices and in some cases the nature of coverage offered, we take into account the underlying obligation, the particular product features and the average customer profile of a given distributor. For our monthly premium policies, most contracts allow for monthly price adjustments after consultation with our distribution partners which help us to reduce our business risk profile when there are adverse changes in the market. Additionally, certain of our distribution contracts provide for profit or loss sharing with our distribution partners, which provide our business and our distribution partners with risk protection and aligned economic interests over the life of the contract. We believe our experience in underwriting allows us to provide competitive pricing to distributors and generate targeted returns and profits for our business.

Distribution

We distribute our lifestyle protection insurance products primarily through financial institutions, including major European banks, that offer our insurance products in connection with underlying loans or other financial products they sell to their customers. Under these arrangements, the distributors typically take responsibility for branding and marketing the products, while we take responsibility for pricing, underwriting and claims payment.

We continue to pursue expanding our current geographical distribution in Latin America and building new distribution in China and have secured large insurance partners in both of these regions. We are currently working with these partners to establish product, distribution and servicing capabilities in order to bring our products and services to the market.

Competition

The lifestyle protection insurance market has several large, international participants, including both captive insurers of large financial institutions and independent providers. We compete through our high service levels, depth of expertise in providing tailored product and service solutions and our ability to service clients at a local level and across multiple countries.

Runoff

The Runoff segment includes the results of non-strategic products which are no longer actively sold. Our non-strategic products primarily include variable annuity, variable life insurance, institutional, corporate-owned

life insurance and other accident and health insurance products. Institutional products consist of funding agreements, FABNs and GICs. We no longer offer retail and group variable annuities but continue to service our existing blocks of business.

The following table sets forth financial information regarding our Runoff segment as of or for the periods indicated. Additional selected financial information and operating performance measures regarding our Runoff segment as of or for these periods are included under “Part II—Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Runoff.”


	As of or for the years ended December 31,
(Amounts in millions)	2014			2013			2012
Total revenues	$	275		$	302		$	381

Net operating income	$	48		$	66		$	46
Net investment gains (losses), net		(34	)		(17	)		12

Income (loss) from continuing operations available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders	$	14		$	49		$	58

Total segment assets	$	12,971		$	14,062		$	15,308

Products

Variable annuities and variable life insurance

Our variable annuities provide contractholders the ability to allocate purchase payments and contract value to underlying investment options available in a separate account format. The contractholder bears the risk associated with the performance of investments in the separate account. In addition, some of our variable annuities permit customers to allocate assets to a guaranteed interest account managed within our general account. Certain of our variable annuity products provide contractholders with lifetime guaranteed income benefits. Our variable annuity products generally provide guaranteed minimum death benefits (“GMDBs”) and may provide guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits (“GMWBs”) and certain types of guaranteed annuitization benefits.

Variable annuities generally provide us fees including mortality and expense risk charges and, in some cases, administrative charges. The fees equal a percentage of the contractholder’s policy account value or related benefit base value, and as of December 31, 2014, ranged from 0.75% to 4.20% per annum depending on the features and options within a contract.

Our variable annuity contracts with a basic GMDB provide a minimum benefit to be paid upon the annuitant’s death, usually equal to the larger of account value and the return of net deposits. Some contractholders also have riders that provide enhanced death benefits. Assuming every annuitant died on December 31, 2014, as of that date, contracts with death benefit features not covered by reinsurance had an account value of $6,319 million and a related death benefit exposure, or net amount at risk, of $125 million.

Some of our variable annuity products provide the contractholder with a guaranteed minimum income stream that they cannot outlive, along with an opportunity to participate in market appreciation.

We no longer offer retail and group variable annuities or variable life insurance products; however, we continue to service our existing block of business which could include additional deposits on existing annuity contracts.

Institutional

Our institutional products consist of funding agreements, FABNs and GICs, which are deposit-type products that pay a guaranteed return to the contractholder on specified dates. We explore periodic issuance of our institutional products for asset-liability management purposes.

Corporate-owned life insurance

We no longer offer our corporate-owned life insurance product; however, we continue to manage our existing block of business.

Other accident and health insurance

Our other accident and health insurance includes Medicare supplement insurance reinsured to a third party, and certain disability, accident and health insurance that we no longer sell.

Corporate and Other Activities

Our Corporate and Other activities include debt financing expenses that are incurred at the Genworth Holdings level, unallocated corporate income and expenses, eliminations of inter-segment transactions and the results of other businesses that are managed outside our operating segments, including discontinued operations.

On August 30, 2013, we sold our wealth management business to AqGen Liberty Acquisition, Inc., a subsidiary of AqGen Liberty Holdings LLC, a partnership of Aquiline Capital Partners and Genstar Capital, for approximately $412 million. This business was accounted for as discontinued operations and its financial position, results of operations and cash flows were separately reported for all periods presented. We received net proceeds of approximately $360 million from the sale. Also included in discontinued operations was our tax and advisor unit, Genworth Financial Investment Services (“GFIS”), which was part of our wealth management business until its sale on April 2, 2012. See note 25 in our consolidated financial statements under “Part II—Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for additional information related to discontinued operations.

Effective April 1, 2013 (immediately prior to the holding company reorganization), Genworth Holdings completed the sale of its reverse mortgage business for total proceeds of $22 million. The gain on the sale was not significant.

International Operations

Our total revenues attributed to international operations for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 were approximately $2.1 billion, $2.1 billion and $2.2 billion, respectively. More information regarding our international operations and revenue in our largest countries is presented in note 20 to the consolidated financial statements under “Part II—Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Marketing

As an insurance provider, we position, promote and differentiate our products and services through product value and innovation, risk management expertise, specialized support and technology for our distributors and marketing programs tailored to particular consumer groups.

We offer a targeted set of products that are designed to meet key needs of consumers throughout the various stages of their lives, with a focus on consumers with household incomes of between $50,000 and $250,000. We are selective in the products we offer and seek to maintain appropriate return and risk thresholds on our product offerings. We also have developed technological approaches that enhance performance by automating key processes and reducing response times, expenses and process variations. We believe these approaches also make it easier for our customers and distributors to do business with us.

We have focused our marketing approach on promoting our products and services to key constituencies, including sales intermediaries, consumers, employees and investors. We seek to build recognition of our offerings and maintain deep relationships with leading distributors by providing specialized and differentiated distribution support, including product training, sales services and technology solutions that support the distributors’ sales efforts. We also leverage technology to extend our presence and marketing communications, using interactive tools, search engine marketing expertise and efficient web services to enhance our customers’ experience.

Our publications on financial security issues help build our reputation and inform our key constituencies, such as distributors, consumers, policymakers and regulators, on relevant topics, including the cost of long-term care, the life insurance coverage gap, consumer financial security as well as mortgage and mortgage insurance trends. In addition, we sponsor various advisory councils with independent sales intermediaries and dedicated sales specialists to gather their feedback on industry trends, new product ideas, approaches to improve service and ways to enhance our relationships.

Risk Management

Risk management is a critical part of our business. We have an enterprise risk management framework that includes risk management processes relating to economic capital analysis, product development, product pricing and management of in-force business, credit risk management, asset-liability management, liquidity management, investment activities, portfolio diversification, underwriting and risk and loss mitigation, financial databases and information systems, business acquisitions and dispositions, and operational capabilities. The risk management framework includes the identification and assessment of risks, a proactive decision process to determine which risks are acceptable to be retained, based on risk and reward considerations, limit setting on major risks, emerging risk identification and the ongoing monitoring, reporting and management of risks. We adhere to risk management disciplines and aim to leverage these efforts into a competitive advantage in distribution and management of our products.

In our evaluation of in-force product performance, new product initiatives and risk mitigation alternatives includes monitoring regulatory and rating agency capital models as well as internal economic capital models to determine the appropriate level of risk-adjusted capital. We utilize our internal economic capital model to assess the risk of loss to our capital resources based upon the portfolio of risks we underwrite and retain and upon our asset and operational risk profiles. Our commitment to risk management involves the ongoing review and expansion of internal risk management capabilities with a focus on utilizing top talent, improved infrastructure and modeling.

Product development and management

Our risk management process begins with the development and introduction of new products and services. We have established a product development process that specifies a series of required analyses, reviews and approvals for any new product. For each proposed product, this process includes a review of the market opportunity and competitive landscape, major pricing assumptions and methodologies, return expectations and variability of returns, sensitivity analysis, asset-liability management, reinsurance and other risk mitigating strategies, underwriting criteria, legal, compliance and business risks and potential mitigating actions. Before we introduce a new product, we establish a monitoring program with specific performance targets and leading indicators, which we monitor frequently to identify any deviations from expected performance so that we can take corrective action when necessary. Significant product introductions, measured either by volume, level or type of risk, require approval by our senior management team at either the business or enterprise level.

We use a similar process to introduce changes to existing products and to offer existing products in new markets and through new distribution channels. Product performance reviews include an analysis of the major

drivers of profitability, underwriting performance and variations from expected results including an in-depth experience analysis of the product’s major risk factors. Other areas of focus include the regulatory and competitive environments and other emerging factors that may affect product performance.

In addition, we initiate special reviews when a product’s performance fails to meet the indicators we established during that product’s introductory review process for subsequent reviews of in-force blocks of business. If a product does not meet our performance criteria, we consider adjustments in pricing, design and marketing or ultimately discontinuing sales of that product. We review our underwriting, pricing, distribution and risk selection strategies on a regular basis in an effort to ensure that our products remain competitive and consistent with our marketing and profitability objectives. For example, in our U.S. and international mortgage insurance and lifestyle protection insurance businesses, we review the profitability of lender accounts to assess whether our business with these lenders is achieving anticipated performance levels and to identify trends requiring remedial action, including changes to underwriting guidelines, product mix or other customer performance.

Asset-liability management

We maintain segmented investment portfolios for the majority of our product lines. This enables us to perform an ongoing analysis of the interest rate, credit, foreign exchange, equity, volatility and liquidity risks associated with each major product line, in addition to credit risks for our overall enterprise versus approved limits. We analyze the behavior of our liability cash flows across a wide variety of scenarios, reflecting policy features and expected policyholder behavior. We also analyze the cash flows of our asset portfolios across the same scenarios. We believe this analysis shows the sensitivity of both our assets and liabilities to changes in economic environments and enables us to manage our assets and liabilities more effectively. In addition, we deploy hedging programs to mitigate certain economic risks associated with our assets, liabilities and capital. For example, we partially hedge the equity, interest rate and market volatility risks in our variable annuity products, as well as interest rate risks in our long-term care insurance products.

Liquidity management

We monitor the cash and highly marketable investment positions in each of our operating companies against operating targets that are designed to ensure that we will have the cash necessary to meet our obligations as they come due. The targets are set based on stress scenarios that have the effect of increasing our expected cash outflows and decreasing our expected cash inflows. In addition, we monitor the ability of our operating companies to provide the dividends needed to meet the cash needs of our holding companies and analyze the impact of reduced dividend levels under stress scenarios.

Portfolio diversification and investments

We use new business and in-force product limits to manage our risk concentrations and to manage product, business level, geographic and other risk exposures. We manage unique product exposures in our business segments. For example, in managing our mortgage insurance risk exposure, we monitor geographic concentrations in our portfolio and the condition of housing markets in each major area in the countries in which we operate. We also monitor fundamental price indicators and factors that affect home prices and their affordability at the national and regional levels.

In addition, our assets are managed within limitations to control credit risk and to avoid excessive concentration in our investment portfolio using defined investment and concentration guidelines that help ensure disciplined underwriting and oversight standards. We seek diversification in our investment portfolio by investing in multiple asset classes and limiting size of exposures. The portfolios are tailored to match the cash flow characteristics of our liabilities, and actively monitoring exposures, changes in credit characteristics and shifts in markets.

We utilize surveillance and quantitative credit risk analytics to identify concentrations and drive diversification of portfolio risks with respect to issuer, sector, rating and geographic concentration. Issuer credit limits for the investment portfolios of each of our businesses (based on business capital, portfolio size and relative issuer cumulative default risk) govern and control credit concentrations in our portfolio. Derivatives counterparty risk and credit derivatives are integrated into issuer limits as well. We also limit and actively monitor country and sovereign exposures in our global portfolio and evaluate and adjust our risk profiles, where needed, in response to geopolitical and economic developments in the relevant areas.

Underwriting and risk and loss mitigation

Underwriting guidelines for all products are routinely reviewed and adjusted as needed to ensure policyholders are provided with the appropriate premium and benefit structure. We seek external reviews from the reinsurance and consulting communities and to utilize their experience to calibrate our risk taking to expected outcomes.

Our risk and loss mitigation activities include ensuring that new policies are issued based on accurate information that we receive and that policy benefit payments are paid in accordance with the policy contract terms.

Financial databases and information systems

Our financial databases and information systems technology are important tools in our risk management. For example, we believe we have the largest database for long-term care insurance claims with 40 years of experience in offering those products. We also have substantial experience in offering individual life insurance products with a large database of claims experience, particularly in preferred risk classes, which has significant predictive value. We have extensive data on the performance of mortgage originations in the United States and other major markets we operate in which we use to assess the drivers and distributions of delinquency and claims experience.

We use technology, in some cases proprietary technology, to manage variations in our underwriting process. For example, in our mortgage insurance businesses, we use borrower credit bureau information, proprietary mortgage scoring models and/or our extensive database of mortgage insurance experience along with external data including rating agency data to evaluate new products and portfolio performance. In the United States and Canada, our proprietary mortgage scoring models use the borrower’s credit score and additional data concerning the borrower, the loan and the property, including loan-to-value ratio, loan type, loan amount, property type, occupancy status and borrower employment to predict the likelihood of having to pay a claim. In addition, our models take into consideration macroeconomic variables such as unemployment, interest rate and home price changes. We believe assessing housing market and mortgage loan attributes across a range of economic outcomes enhances our ability to manage and price for risk. We perform portfolio analysis on an ongoing basis to determine if modifications are required to our product offerings, underwriting guidelines or premium rates.

We rely extensively on complex models to calculate the value of assets and liabilities (including reserves), capital levels and other financial metrics, as well as for other purposes. We have a model risk management framework in place that is designed to ensure appropriate governance of model risk. Independent model validation teams assess on a systematic basis the appropriate use of models, taking into account the risks associated with assumptions, algorithms and process controls supporting the use of the models.

Business acquisitions and dispositions

When we consider an acquisition or a disposition of a block or book of business or entity, we use various business, financial and risk management disciplines to evaluate the merits of the proposals and assess its strategic fit with our current business model. We have a review process that includes a series of required analyses, reviews and approvals similar to those employed for new product introductions.

Operational capabilities

We have risk management programs in place to review the continued operation of our businesses in the event of loss or other adverse consequences on business outcomes resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems or from external events. We provide risk assessments, together with control reviews, to provide an indication as to how the risks need to be managed. Significant events impacting our businesses are assessed in terms of their impact on our risk profile. Controls are used to mitigate the likelihood of a risk occurring or minimizing the consequence of the risk if it did occur. Investigative teams are maintained in our various locations to address potential operational risk incidents from both internal and external sources.

Operations and Technology

Service and support

In our U.S. Life Insurance segment, we interact directly with our independent sales intermediaries and dedicated sales specialists through secure websites that have enabled them to transact business with us electronically.

In our International Mortgage Insurance and U.S. Mortgage Insurance segments, we introduced technology enabled services to help our customers (lenders and servicers) as well as our consumers (borrowers and homeowners). Technology advancements have allowed us to reduce application approval turn-times, error rates and enhance our customers’ ease of doing business with us. Through our secure internet-enabled information systems and data warehouses, servicers can transact business with us in a timely manner. In the United States, proprietary, decision models have helped generate loss mitigation strategies for distressed borrowers. Our models use information from various third-party sources, such as consumer credit agencies, to indicate borrower willingness and capacity to fulfill debt obligations. Identification of specific borrower groups that are likely to work their loans out allows us to create custom outreach strategies to achieve a favorable loss mitigation outcome.

In our International Protection segment, we have existing operations in Europe and Mexico and have established new operations in Asia and South America. We have built a scalable operations model with the ability to customize service based on client and end user needs. We are continuously developing new processes and technologies (for example, an online integrated claims management experience) to reduce costs and enhance end user experience by reducing customer effort and cycle time.

Operating centers

We have established scalable, low-cost operating centers in Virginia, North Carolina and Ireland. In addition, through an arrangement with an outsourcing provider, we have a substantial team of professionals in India who provide a variety of services to us, including data entry, transaction processing and functional support to our insurance operations.

Reserves

We calculate and maintain reserves for estimated future payments of claims to our policyholders and contractholders in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) and industry accounting practices. We build these reserves as the estimated value of those obligations increases, and we release these reserves as those future obligations are paid, experience changes or the policy lapses. The reserves we establish reflect estimates and actuarial assumptions and methodologies with regard to our future experience. These estimates and actuarial assumptions and methodologies involve the exercise of significant judgment and are inherently uncertain. These estimates and actuarial assumptions and methodologies are subjected to a variety of internal reviews and, in some cases, external independent reviews. Our future financial results depend significantly upon the extent to which our actual future experience is consistent with the assumptions we have

used in determining our reserves as well as the assumptions originally used in pricing our products. Small changes in assumptions or small deviations of actual experience from assumptions can have, and in the past had, material impacts on our reserves, results of operations and financial condition. Many factors, and changes in these factors, can affect future experience including, but not limited to: interest rates; market returns and volatility; economic and social conditions such as inflation, unemployment, home price appreciation or depreciation, and healthcare experience (including type of care and cost of care); policyholder persistency or lapses (i.e., the probability that a policy or contract will remain in-force from one period to the next); insured life expectancy or longevity; insured morbidity (i.e., frequency and severity of claim, including claim termination rates and benefit utilization rates); and doctrines of legal liability and damage awards in litigation. Because these assumptions relate to factors that are not known in advance, change over time, are difficult to accurately predict and are inherently uncertain, we cannot determine with precision the ultimate amounts we will pay for actual claims or the timing of those payments. Moreover, we may not be able to mitigate the impact of unexpected adverse experience by increasing premiums and/or other charges to policyholders (where we have the right to do so) or by offering reduced benefits as an alternative to increasing premiums.

For additional information on reserves, see “Part II—Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Estimates—Insurance liabilities and reserves.”

Reinsurance

We reinsure a portion of our annuity, life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance and lifestyle protection insurance with unaffiliated reinsurers. In a reinsurance transaction, a reinsurer agrees to indemnify another insurer for part or all of its liability under a policy or policies it has issued for an agreed upon premium. We participate in reinsurance activities in order to minimize exposure to significant risks, limit losses, and provide additional capacity for future growth. We also obtain reinsurance to meet certain capital requirements, including sometimes utilizing intercompany reinsurance agreements to manage our statutory capital positions. However, these inter-company agreements do not have an effect on our consolidated U.S. GAAP financial statements.

We enter into various agreements with reinsurers that cover individual risks, group risks or defined blocks of business, primarily on a coinsurance, yearly renewable term, excess of loss or catastrophe excess basis. These reinsurance agreements spread risk and minimize the effect or losses. For example, in addition to reinsuring mortality risk on our life insurance products, we are coinsuring approximately 20% of all our long-term care insurance sales. The extent of each risk retained by us depends on our evaluation of the specific risk, subject, in certain circumstances, to maximum retention limits based on the characteristics of coverages.

Under the terms of the reinsurance agreements, the reinsurer agrees to reimburse us for the ceded amount in the event a claim is paid. Cessions under reinsurance agreements do not discharge our obligations as the primary insurer. In the event that reinsurers do not meet their obligations under the terms of the reinsurance agreements, reinsurance recoverable balances could become uncollectible. Our amounts recoverable from reinsurers represent receivables from and/or reserves ceded to reinsurers. The amounts recoverable from reinsurers were $17.3 billion and $17.2 billion as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

We focus on obtaining reinsurance from a diverse group of reinsurers. We regularly evaluate the financial condition of our reinsurers and monitor concentration risk with our reinsurers at least annually. We have established standards and criteria for our use and selection of reinsurers. In order for a new reinsurer to participate in our current program, without collateralization, we require the reinsurer to have an S&P rating of “A-” or better or a Moody’s Investors Services Inc. (“Moody’s”) rating of “A3” or better and a minimum capital and surplus level of $350 million. If the reinsurer does not have these ratings, we generally require them to post collateral as described below. In addition, we may require collateral from a reinsurer to mitigate credit/collectability risk. Typically, in such cases, the reinsurer must either maintain minimum specified ratings and

risk-based capital ratios or provide the specified quality and quantity of collateral. Similarly, we have also required collateral in connection with books of business sold pursuant to indemnity reinsurance agreements. We have been required to post collateral when purchasing books of business.

Reinsurers that are not licensed, accredited or authorized in the state of domicile of the reinsured (“ceding company”) are required to post statutorily prescribed forms of collateral for the ceding company to receive reinsurance credit. The three primary forms of collateral are: (i) qualifying assets held in a reserve credit trust; (ii) irrevocable, unconditional, evergreen letters of credit issued by a qualified U.S. financial institution; and (iii) assets held by the ceding company in a segregated funds withheld account. Collateral must be maintained in accordance with the rules of the ceding company’s state of domicile and must be readily accessible by the ceding company to cover claims under the reinsurance agreement. Accordingly, our insurance subsidiaries require unauthorized reinsurers that are not so licensed, accredited or authorized to post acceptable forms of collateral to support their reinsurance obligations to us.

The following table sets forth our exposure to our principal reinsurers in our U.S. life insurance businesses as of December 31, 2014:


(Amounts in millions)	Reinsurance recoverable
UFLIC ⁽¹⁾	$	14,494
RGA Reinsurance Company		798
Munich American Reassurance Company		724
Riversource Life Insurance Company ⁽²⁾		558
General Re Life Corporation		311

⁽¹⁾

We have several significant reinsurance transactions with Union Fidelity Life Insurance Company (“UFLIC”), an affiliate of our former parent, General Electric Company (“GE”), which results in a significant concentration of reinsurance risk. UFLIC’s obligations to us are secured by trust accounts. See note 9 in our consolidated financial statements under “Part II—Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

⁽²⁾	Our reinsurance arrangement with Riversource Life Insurance Company covers a runoff block of single premium term life insurance policies.

In our international mortgage insurance business, the majority of the reinsurance treaties are on an excess of loss basis that are designed to attach only under stress loss events and are renewable (with the agreement of both us and the relevant reinsurers) on a periodic basis. The largest coverage amount from a single reinsurer was approximately $100 million. The top five reinsurers of our international mortgage insurance business represented approximately 45% of our reinsurance coverage in that business. As of December 31, 2014, we recorded international mortgage insurance ceded loss reserves of $23 million within reinsurance recoverable.

We have also historically entered into reinsurance programs in which we share portions of our U.S. mortgage insurance risk written on loans originated or purchased by lenders with captive reinsurance companies affiliated with these lenders. In return, we cede to the captive reinsurers a predetermined portion of our gross premiums on flow insurance written. New insurance written through the bulk channel generally is not subject to these arrangements. See “—Business—U.S. Mortgage Insurance” for additional information regarding reinsurance captives. As of December 31, 2014, we recorded U.S. mortgage insurance ceded loss reserves of $24 million within reinsurance recoverable where cumulative losses have exceeded the attachment points in several captive reinsurance arrangements.

For additional information related to reinsurance, see note 9 in our consolidated financial statements under “Part II—Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

Financial Strength Ratings

Ratings with respect to financial strength are an important factor in establishing the competitive position of insurance companies. Ratings are important to maintaining public confidence in us and our ability to market our products. Rating organizations review the financial performance and condition of most insurers and provide opinions regarding financial strength, operating performance and ability to meet obligations to policyholders.

As of February 27, 2015, our principal life insurance subsidiaries were rated in terms of financial strength by S&P, Moody’s and A.M. Best Company, Inc. (“A.M. Best”) as follows:

Company

S&P rating

Moody’s rating

A.M. Best rating

Genworth Life Insurance Company

BBB- (Good)

Baa1 (Adequate)

A- (Excellent)

Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company

BBB- (Good)

Baa1 (Adequate)

A- (Excellent)

Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York

BBB- (Good)

Baa1 (Adequate)

A- (Excellent)

As of February 27, 2015, our principal mortgage insurance subsidiaries were rated in terms of financial strength by S&P, Moody’s and Dominion Bond Rating Service (“DBRS”) as follows:


Company	S&P rating	Moody’s rating	DBRS rating
Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corporation	BB- (Marginal)	Ba1 (Questionable)	Not rated
Genworth Residential Mortgage Insurance Corporation of NC	BB- (Marginal)	Ba1 (Questionable)	Not rated
Genworth Financial Mortgage Insurance Pty. Limited (Australia) ⁽¹⁾	A+ (Strong)	A3 (Good)	Not rated
Genworth Financial Mortgage Insurance Limited (Europe)	BB- (Marginal)	Not rated	Not rated
Genworth Financial Mortgage Insurance Company Canada	A+ (Strong)	Not rated	AA (Superior)
Genworth Seguros de Credito a la Vivienda S.A. de C.V. ⁽²⁾	Not rated	Aa3.mx	Not rated

⁽¹⁾	Also rated “A+” by Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”).

⁽²⁾	Rated at the local country level.

As of February 27, 2015, our principal lifestyle protection insurance subsidiaries were rated in terms of financial strength by S&P as follows:


Company	S&P rating
Financial Assurance Company Limited		A- (Strong)
Financial Insurance Company Limited		A- (Strong)

The S&P, Moody’s, A.M. Best and DBRS ratings included are not designed to be, and do not serve as, measures of protection or valuation offered to investors. These financial strength ratings should not be relied on with respect to making an investment in our securities. At our request, S&P and Moody’s no longer provide short-term ratings for Genworth Life Insurance Company and Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company. In addition, at our request, S&P no longer provides a rating on Genworth Seguros de Credito a la Vivienda S.A. de C.V.

S&P states that insurers rated “A” (Strong), “BBB” (Good) or “BB” (Marginal) have strong, good or marginal financial security characteristics, respectively. The “A,” “BBB” and “BB” ranges are the third-, fourth- and fifth-highest of nine financial strength rating ranges assigned by S&P, which range from “AAA” to “R.” A plus (+) or minus (-) shows relative standing within a major rating category. These suffixes are not added to ratings in the “AAA” category or to ratings below the “CCC” category. Accordingly, the “A+,” “A-,” “BBB-” and “BB-” ratings are the fifth-, seventh-, tenth- and thirteenth-highest of S&P’s 21 ratings categories.

Moody’s states that insurance companies rated “A” (Good) offer good financial security, that insurance companies rated “Baa” (Adequate) offer adequate financial security and that insurance companies rated “Ba” (Questionable) offer questionable financial security. The “A” (Good), “Baa” (Adequate) and “Ba” (Questionable) ranges are the third-, fourth- and fifth-highest, respectively, of nine financial strength rating ranges assigned by Moody’s, which range from “Aaa” to “C.” Numeric modifiers are used to refer to the ranking within the group, with 1 being the highest and 3 being the lowest. These modifiers are not added to ratings in the “Aaa” category or to ratings below the “Caa” category. Accordingly, the “A3”, “Baal” and “Ba1” ratings are the seventh-, eighth- and eleventh-highest, respectively, of Moody’s 21 ratings categories. Issuers or issues rated “Aa.mx” demonstrate very strong creditworthiness relative to other issuers in Mexico.

A.M. Best states that the “A-” (Excellent) rating is assigned to those companies that have, in its opinion, an excellent ability to meet their ongoing insurance obligations. The “A-” (Excellent) rating is the fourth-highest of 15 ratings assigned by A.M. Best, which range from “A++” to “F.”

DBRS states that long-term obligations rated “AA” are of superior credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is considered high and unlikely to be significantly vulnerable to future events. Credit quality differs from “AAA” only to a small degree.

We also solicit a rating from Fitch for our Australian mortgage insurance subsidiary. Fitch states that “A” (Strong) rated insurance companies are viewed as possessing strong capacity to meet policyholder and contract obligations. The “A” rating category is the third-highest of nine financial strength rating categories, which range from “AAA” to “C.” The symbol (+) or (-) may be appended to a rating to indicate the relative position of a credit within a rating category. These suffixes are not added to ratings in the “AAA” category or to ratings below the “B” category. Accordingly, the “A+” rating is the fifth-highest of Fitch’s 21 ratings categories.

On November 6, 2014, following our earnings announcement for the third quarter of 2014, which included a discussion of the completion of a comprehensive review of our long-term care insurance claim reserves conducted, Moody’s announced, among other things, that it placed the credit ratings of Genworth Holdings and the financial strength ratings of its principal life insurance subsidiaries on review for downgrade. Moody’s also announced that it placed the financial strength rating of Genworth Seguros de Credit a la Vivienda S.A. de C.V. under review for downgrade and withdrew the rating and re-issued it at the local country level. On February 11, 2015, following our earnings announcement for the fourth quarter of 2014, Moody’s announced, among other things, its downgrade of the financial strength ratings of our principal life insurance subsidiaries to “Baa1” (Adequate) from “A3” (Good). The announcement on February 11, 2015 concluded its review for downgrade initiated on November 6, 2014. The ratings of our U.S. and Australian mortgage insurance subsidiaries as well as Genworth Seguros de Credito a la Vivienda were not affected by this specific rating action.

On November 6, 2014, S&P also announced that it had lowered the issuer credit and senior unsecured debt ratings on Genworth Holdings and lowered its financial strength ratings of our principal life insurance subsidiaries to “BBB+” from “A-,” in each case with a negative outlook, and had also lowered its financial strength ratings of certain of our financing entities. As a result, because of their ratings approach linking ratings of affiliated companies, S&P also announced that it had lowered its financial strength ratings on our principal Canadian, Australian and European mortgage insurance subsidiaries and placed its ratings of our principal lifestyle protection insurance subsidiaries on credit-watch with negative implications. On February 18, 2015, following our earnings announcement for the fourth quarter of 2014, S&P announced, among other things, its downgrade of the financial strength ratings of our principal life insurance subsidiaries to “BBB-” (Good) from “BBB+” (Good). S&P also announced the downgrade of the financial strength rating of our European mortgage insurance subsidiary to “BB-” (Marginal) from “BB+” (Marginal) due to the corporate guarantee from the parent. S&P affirmed the financial strength ratings of our Canadian, Australian and U.S. mortgage insurance and lifestyle protection insurance subsidiaries.

A.M. Best affirmed our life insurance subsidiaries ratings at “A” (Excellent) with stable outlook on November 6, 2014. However, on December 18, 2014, A.M. Best placed our life insurance subsidiaries under

review with negative implications. On February 13, 2015, following our earnings announcement for the fourth quarter of 2014, A.M. Best announced its downgrade of our principal life insurance subsidiaries from “A” (Excellent) to “A-” (Excellent).

S&P, Moody’s, A.M. Best, DBRS and Fitch review their ratings periodically and we cannot assure you that we will maintain our current ratings in the future. Other agencies may also rate our company or our insurance subsidiaries on a solicited or an unsolicited basis. We do not provide information to agencies issuing unsolicited ratings and we cannot ensure that any agencies that rate our company or our insurance subsidiaries on an unsolicited basis will continue to do so.

For information on adverse credit rating actions related to Genworth Holdings, see “Item 1A—Risk Factors—Recent adverse rating agency actions have resulted in a loss of business and adversely affected our results of operations, financial condition and business and future adverse rating actions could have a further and more significant adverse impact on us.”

Investments

Organization

Our investment department includes asset management, portfolio management, derivatives, risk management, operations, accounting and other functions. Under the direction of the investment committee and our Chief Investment Officer, it is responsible for managing the assets in our various portfolios, including establishing investment and derivatives policies and strategies, reviewing asset-liability management, performing asset allocation for our domestic subsidiaries and coordinating investment activities with our international subsidiaries.

We use both internal and external asset managers to take advantage of expertise in particular asset classes or to leverage country-specific investing capabilities. We internally manage certain asset classes for our domestic insurance operations, including public corporate and municipal securities, structured securities, government securities, commercial mortgage loans, privately placed debt securities and derivatives. We utilize external asset managers primarily for our international portfolios and captive reinsurers, as well as select asset classes. Management of investments for our international operations is overseen by the investment committees reporting to the boards of directors of the applicable non-U.S. legal entities in consultation with our Chief Investment Officer. The majority of the assets in our lifestyle protection insurance business and European, Canadian and Australian mortgage insurance businesses are managed by unaffiliated investment managers located in their respective countries. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, approximately 18% and 20%, respectively, of our invested assets were held by our international businesses and were invested primarily in non-U.S.-denominated securities.

As of December 31, 2014, we had total cash, cash equivalents and invested assets of $78.2 billion. We manage our assets to meet diversification, credit quality, yield and liquidity requirements of our policy and contract liabilities by investing primarily in fixed maturity securities, including government, municipal and corporate bonds and mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securities. We also hold mortgage loans on commercial real estate and other invested assets, which include derivatives, trading securities, limited partnerships and short-term investments. Investments for our particular insurance company subsidiaries are required to comply with our risk management requirements, as well as applicable laws and insurance regulations.

The following table sets forth our cash, cash equivalents and invested assets as of December 31:


	2014					2013
(Amounts in millions)	Carrying value		% of total			Carrying value		% of total
Fixed maturity securities, available-for-sale:
Public	$	46,636		60	%	$	44,375		61	%
Private		15,811		20			14,254		20
Commercial mortgage loans		6,100		8			5,899		8
Other invested assets		2,296		3			1,686		2
Policy loans		1,501		2			1,434		2
Restricted other invested assets related to securitization entities ⁽¹⁾		411		1			391		1
Equity securities, available-for-sale		282		—			341		—
Restricted commercial mortgage loans related to securitization entities ⁽¹⁾		201		—			233		—
Cash and cash equivalents		4,918		6			4,214		6

Total cash, cash equivalents and invested assets	$	78,156		100	%	$	72,827		100	%

⁽¹⁾	See note 18 to our consolidated financial statements under “Part II—Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for additional information related to consolidated securitization entities.

For a discussion of our investments, see “Part II—Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Consolidated Balance Sheets.”

Our primary investment objective is to meet our obligations to policyholders and contractholders while increasing value to our stockholders by investing in a diversified, high quality portfolio, comprising income producing securities and other assets. Our investment strategy focuses on:

•

managing interest rate risk, as appropriate, through monitoring asset durations relative to policyholder and contractholder obligations;

•

selecting assets based on fundamental, research-driven strategies;

•

emphasizing fixed-income, low-volatility assets while pursuing active strategies to enhance yield;

•

maintaining sufficient liquidity to meet unexpected financial obligations;

•

regularly evaluating our asset class mix and pursuing additional investment classes; and

•

continuously monitoring asset quality and market conditions that could affect our assets.

We are exposed to two primary sources of investment risk:

•

credit risk relating to the uncertainty associated with the continued ability of a given issuer to make timely payments of principal and interest and

•

interest rate risk relating to the market price and cash flow variability associated with changes in market interest rates.

We manage credit risk by analyzing issuers, transaction structures and any associated collateral. We continually evaluate the probability of credit default and estimated loss in the event of such a default, which provides us with early notification of worsening credits. We also manage credit risk through industry and issuer diversification and asset allocation practices. For commercial mortgage loans, we manage credit risk through property type, geographic region and product type diversification and asset allocation.

We manage interest rate risk by monitoring the relationship between the duration of our assets and the duration of our liabilities, seeking to manage interest rate risk in both rising and falling interest rate environments, and by utilizing various derivative strategies. For further information on our management of interest rate risk, see “Part II—Item 7A—Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

Fixed maturity securities

Fixed maturity securities, which were primarily classified as available-for-sale, including tax-exempt bonds, consisted principally of publicly traded and privately placed debt securities, and represented 80% and 81%, respectively, of total cash, cash equivalents and invested assets as of December 31, 2014 and 2013.

We invest in privately placed fixed maturity securities to increase diversification and obtain higher yields than can ordinarily be obtained with comparable public market securities. Generally, private placements provide us with protective covenants, call protection features and, where applicable, a higher level of collateral. However, our private placements are generally not as freely transferable as public securities because of restrictions imposed by federal and state securities laws, the terms of the securities and the characteristics of the private market.

The following table presents our public, private and total fixed maturity securities by the Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (“NRSRO”) designations and/or equivalent ratings, as well as the percentage, based upon fair value, that each designation comprises. Certain fixed maturity securities that are not rated by an NRSRO are shown based upon internally prepared credit evaluations.


	December 31,
(Amounts in millions)	2014							2013
NRSRO designation	Amortized cost		Fair value		% of total			Amortized cost		Fair value		% of total
Public fixed maturity securities
AAA	$	14,050	$	15,743		34	%	$	14,724	$	15,148		34	%
AA		4,467		4,844		10			4,531		4,627		11
A		12,214		13,887		30			11,621		12,488		28
BBB		9,599		10,612		23			10,164		10,720		24
BB		1,304		1,362		3			1,114		1,148		3
B		76		76		—			121		132		—
CCC and lower		100		112		—			115		112		—

Total public fixed maturity securities	$	41,810	$	46,636		100	%	$	42,390	$	44,375		100	%


Private fixed maturity securities
AAA	$	1,533	$	1,597		10	%	$	1,464	$	1,483		11	%
AA		2,021		2,104		14			1,536		1,570		11
A		4,639		4,928		31			4,217		4,331		30
BBB		5,972		6,214		39			5,832		5,984		42
BB		794		794		5			711		736		5
B		103		95		1			61		56		—
CCC and lower		78		79		—			98		94		1

Total private fixed maturity securities	$	15,140	$	15,811		100	%	$	13,919	$	14,254		100	%


Total fixed maturity securities
AAA	$	15,583	$	17,340		28	%	$	16,188	$	16,631		28	%
AA		6,488		6,948		11			6,067		6,197		11
A		16,853		18,815		30			15,838		16,819		29
BBB		15,571		16,826		27			15,996		16,704		29
BB		2,098		2,156		4			1,825		1,884		3
B		179		171		—			182		188		—
CCC and lower		178		191		—			213		206		—

Total fixed maturity securities	$	56,950	$	62,447		100	%	$	56,309	$	58,629		100	%

Based upon fair value, public fixed maturity securities represented 75% and 76%, respectively, of total fixed maturity securities as of December 31, 2014 and 2013. Private fixed maturity securities represented 25% and 24%, respectively, of total fixed maturity securities as of December 31, 2014 and 2013.

We diversify our fixed maturity securities by security sector. The following table sets forth the fair value of our fixed maturity securities by sector, as well as the percentage of the total fixed maturity securities holdings that each security sector comprised as of December 31:


	2014					2013
(Amounts in millions)	Fair value		% of total			Fair value		% of total
U.S. government, agencies and government-sponsored enterprises	$	6,000		10	%	$	4,810		8	%
Tax-exempt		362		1			295		—
Government—non-U.S.		2,106		3			2,146		4
U.S. corporate		27,200		44			25,035		43
Corporate—non-U.S.		15,132		24			15,071		26
Residential mortgage-backed		5,240		8			5,225		9
Commercial mortgage-backed		2,702		4			2,898		5
Other asset-backed		3,705		6			3,149		5

Total fixed maturity securities	$	62,447		100	%	$	58,629		100	%

The following table sets forth the major industry types that comprise our corporate bond holdings, based primarily on industry codes established in the Barclays Capital Aggregate Index, as well as the percentage of the total corporate bond holdings that each industry comprised as of December 31:


	2014					2013
(Amounts in millions)	Fair value		% of total			Fair value		% of total
Utilities and energy	$	10,270		24	%	$	9,510		24	%
Finance and insurance		8,152		19			7,719		19
Consumer—non-cyclical		5,002		12			4,863		12
Technology and communications		3,449		8			3,183		8
Industrial		3,202		8			2,862		7
Capital goods		2,634		6			2,533		6
Consumer—cyclical		2,510		6			2,353		6
Transportation		1,706		4			1,600		4
Other		5,407		13			5,483		14

Total	$	42,332		100	%	$	40,106		100	%

We diversify our corporate bond holdings by industry and issuer. As of December 31, 2014, our combined corporate bond holdings in the 10 issuers to which we had the greatest exposure were $2.3 billion, which was approximately 3% of our total cash, cash equivalents and invested assets. The exposure to the largest single issuer of corporate bonds held as of December 31, 2014 was $286 million, which was less than 1% of our total cash, cash equivalents and invested assets.

We do not have material unhedged exposure to foreign currency risk in our invested assets of our U.S. operations. In our international insurance operations, both our assets and liabilities are generally denominated in local currencies.

Further analysis related to our investments portfolio as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 is included under “Part II—Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Investment and Derivative Instruments.”

Commercial mortgage loans and other invested assets

Our mortgage loans are collateralized by commercial properties, including multi-family residential buildings. Commercial mortgage loans are primarily stated at principal amounts outstanding, net of deferred expenses and allowance for loan loss. We diversify our commercial mortgage loans by both property type and geographic region. See note 4 to our consolidated financial statements under “Part II—Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for additional information on distribution across property type and geographic region for commercial mortgage loans, as well as information on our interest in equity securities and other invested assets.

Selected financial information regarding our other invested assets and derivative instruments as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 is included under “Part II—Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Investment and Derivative Instruments.”

Regulation

Our businesses are subject to extensive regulation and supervision.

General

Our insurance operations are subject to a wide variety of laws and regulations. State insurance laws and regulations (“Insurance Laws”) regulate most aspects of our U.S. insurance businesses, and our U.S. insurers are regulated by the insurance departments of the states in which they are domiciled and licensed. Our non-U.S. insurance operations are principally regulated by insurance regulatory authorities in the jurisdictions in which they are domiciled. Our insurance products and businesses also are affected by U.S. federal, state and local tax laws, and the tax laws of non-U.S. jurisdictions. Our securities operations, including our insurance products that are regulated as securities, such as variable annuities and variable life insurance, also are subject to U.S. federal and state and non-U.S. securities laws and regulations. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), state securities authorities and similar non-U.S. authorities regulate and supervise these products.

The primary purpose of the Insurance Laws regulating our insurance businesses and their equivalents in the other countries in which we operate, and the securities laws affecting our variable annuity products, variable life insurance products, registered FABNs and our broker/dealer, is to protect our policyholders, contractholders and clients, not our stockholders. These laws and regulations are regularly re-examined and any changes to these laws or new laws may be more restrictive or otherwise adversely affect our operations. Insurance and securities regulatory authorities (including state law enforcement agencies and attorneys general or their non-U.S. equivalents) periodically make inquiries regarding compliance with insurance, securities and other laws and regulations, and we cooperate with such inquiries and take corrective action when warranted.

Our distributors and institutional customers also operate in regulated environments. Changes in the regulations that affect their operations may affect our business relationships with them and their decision to distribute or purchase our subsidiaries’ products.

In addition, the Insurance Laws of our U.S. insurers’ domiciliary jurisdictions and the equivalent laws in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and certain other jurisdictions in which we operate require that a person obtain the approval of the applicable insurance regulator prior to acquiring control, and in some cases prior to divesting its control, of an insurer. These laws may discourage potential acquisition proposals and may delay, deter or prevent an investment in or a change of control involving us, or one or more of our regulated subsidiaries, including transactions that our management and some or all of our stockholders might consider desirable.

U.S. Insurance Regulation

Our U.S. insurers are licensed and regulated in all jurisdictions in which they conduct insurance business. The extent of this regulation varies, but Insurance Laws generally govern the financial condition of insurers, including standards of solvency, types and concentrations of permissible investments, establishment and maintenance of reserves, credit for reinsurance and requirements of capital adequacy, and the business conduct of insurers, including marketing and sales practices and claims handling. In addition, Insurance Laws usually require the licensing of insurers and agents, and the approval of policy forms, related materials and the rates for certain lines of insurance.

The Insurance Laws applicable to us or our U.S. insurers are described below. Our U.S. mortgage insurers are also subject to additional Insurance Laws applicable specifically to mortgage insurers discussed below under “—Mortgage Insurance.”

Insurance holding company regulation

All U.S. jurisdictions in which our U.S. insurers conduct business have enacted legislation requiring each U.S. insurer (except captive insurers) in a holding company system to register with the insurance regulatory authority of its domiciliary jurisdiction and furnish that regulatory authority various information concerning the operations of, and the interrelationships and transactions among, companies within its holding company system that may materially affect the operations, management or financial condition of the insurers within the system. These Insurance Laws regulate transactions between insurers and their affiliates, sometimes mandating prior notice to the regulator and/or regulatory approval. Generally, these Insurance Laws require that all transactions between an insurer and an affiliate be fair and reasonable, and that the insurer’s statutory surplus following such transaction be reasonable in relation to its outstanding liabilities and adequate to its financial needs.

As a holding company with no significant business operations of our own, we depend on dividends or other distributions from our subsidiaries as the principal source of cash to meet our obligations, including the payment of operating expenses, amounts we owe to GE under the Tax Matters Agreement and to our subsidiaries for tax sharing agreements and interest on, and repayment of principal of, any debt obligations, among other things. Our U.S. insurers’ payment of dividends or other distributions is regulated by the Insurance Laws of their respective domiciliary states, and insurers may not pay an “extraordinary” dividend or distribution, or pay a dividend except out of earned surplus, without prior regulatory approval. In general, an “extraordinary” dividend or distribution is defined as a dividend or distribution that, together with other dividends and distributions made within the preceding 12 months, exceeds the greater (or, in some jurisdictions, the lesser) of:

•

10% of the insurer’s statutory surplus as of the immediately prior year end or

•

the statutory net gain from the insurer’s operations (if a life insurer) or the statutory net income (if not a life insurer) during the prior calendar year.

In addition, insurance regulators may prohibit the payment of ordinary dividends or other payments by our insurers (such as a payment under a tax sharing agreement or for employment or other services) if they determine that such payment could be adverse to our policyholders or contractholders.

The Insurance Laws require that a person obtain the approval of the insurance commissioner of an insurer’s domiciliary jurisdiction prior to acquiring control of such insurer. Control of an insurer is generally presumed to exist if any person, directly or indirectly, owns, controls, holds with the power to vote, or holds proxies representing, 10% or more of the voting securities of the insurer or its ultimate parent entity. In considering an application to acquire control of an insurer, the insurance commissioner generally considers factors such as the experience, competence and financial strength of the applicant, the integrity of the applicant’s board of directors and executive officers, the acquirer’s plans for the management and operation of the insurer, and any anti-competitive results that may arise from the acquisition. Some states require a person seeking to acquire control of an insurer licensed but not domiciled in that state to make a filing prior to completing an acquisition if the

acquirer and its affiliates and the target insurer and its affiliates have specified market shares in the same lines of insurance in that state. These provisions may not require acquisition approval but can lead to imposition of conditions on an acquisition that could delay or prevent its consummation.

In December 2010, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (the “NAIC”) adopted significant changes to the insurance holding company act and regulations (the “NAIC Amendments”). The NAIC Amendments are designed to respond to perceived gaps in the regulation of insurance holding company systems in the United States. One of the major changes is a requirement that an insurance holding company system’s ultimate controlling person submit annually to its lead state insurance regulator an “enterprise risk report” that identifies activities, circumstances or events involving one or more affiliates of an insurer that, if not remedied properly, are likely to have a material adverse effect upon the financial condition or liquidity of the insurer or its insurance holding company system as a whole. Other changes include requiring a controlling person to submit prior notice to its domiciliary insurance regulator of a divestiture of control, having detailed minimum requirements for cost sharing and management agreements between an insurer and its affiliates and expanding the agreements between an insurer and its affiliates to be filed with its domiciliary insurance regulator. The NAIC Amendments must be adopted by the individual state legislatures and insurance regulators in order to be effective. We expect most or all of the states will adopt them in whole or substantial part by January 2016.

In 2012, the NAIC adopted the Risk Management and Own Risk and Solvency Assessment Model Act (the “ORSA Model Act”). The ORSA Model Act will require an insurance holding company system’s Chief Risk Officer to submit annually to its lead state insurance regulator an Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (“ORSA”) Summary Report. The ORSA is a confidential internal assessment appropriate to the nature, scale and complexity of an insurer, conducted by that insurer of the material and relevant risks identified by the insurer associated with an insurer’s current business plan and the sufficiency of capital resources to support those risks. An insurer that is subject to the ORSA requirements will be expected to:

•

regularly, no less than annually, conduct an ORSA to assess the adequacy of its risk management framework, and current and estimated projected future solvency position;

•

internally document the process and results of the assessment; and

•

provide a confidential high-level ORSA Summary Report annually to the lead state commissioner if the insurer is a member of an insurance group and, upon request, by the domiciliary state regulator.

The ORSA Model Act must be adopted by the individual state legislatures and insurance regulators in order to be effective in a particular state. In the states where the ORSA Model Act has been adopted, the ORSA Model Act’s requirements generally became effective on January 1, 2015.

The NAIC recently has adopted new model laws and regulations as part of its Solvency Modernization Initiative. In November 2014, the NAIC adopted the Corporate Governance Annual Disclosure Model Act and the Corporate Governance Annual Disclosure Model Regulation (the “Corporate Governance Model Act and Regulation”), which would require insurers to disclose detailed information regarding their governance practices. In December 2014, the NAIC adopted further amendments of the insurance holding company act and regulations (the “2014 NAIC Amendments”), which would authorize U.S. regulators to, among other items, lead or participate in the group-wide supervision of certain international insurance groups. Both the Corporate Governance Model Act and Regulation and the 2014 NAIC Amendments must be adopted by individual state legislatures and insurance regulators in order to be effective in a particular state.

During 2014, the NAIC also approved a new regulatory framework applicable to the use of captive insurers in connection with Regulation XXX and Regulation AXXX transactions. Among other things, the framework calls for more disclosure of an insurer’s use of captives in its statutory financial statements, and narrows the types of assets permitted to back statutory reserves that are required to support the insurer’s future obligations. The NAIC has implemented the framework through a new actuarial guideline (“AG 48”), which requires the actuary of the ceding insurer that opines on the insurer’s reserves to issue a qualified opinion if the framework is

not followed. The requirements of AG 48 became effective as of January 1, 2015 in all states, without any further action necessary by state legislatures or insurance regulators to implement it. The NAIC currently is developing a model regulation to be adopted by the states that is expected to contain the same substantive provisions as the provisions of the adopted AG 48.

We cannot predict the impact, if any, that the NAIC Amendments, the 2014 NAIC Amendments, compliance with the ORSA Model Act, the requirements of AG 48, and the Corporate Governance Model Act and Regulation will have on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Periodic reporting

Our U.S. insurers must file reports, including detailed annual financial statements, with insurance regulatory authorities in each jurisdiction in which they do business, and their operations and accounts are subject to periodic examination by such authorities.

Policy forms

Our U.S. insurers’ policy forms are subject to regulation in every U.S. jurisdiction in which they transact insurance business. In most U.S. jurisdictions, policy forms must be filed prior to their use, and in some U.S. jurisdictions, forms must be approved by insurance regulatory authorities prior to use.

In our U.S. mortgage insurance business, partly in response to mandatory master policy changes issued by the GSEs, with the oversight of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (the “FHFA”), we have revised our master policy and related endorsements and they have been approved by the GSEs and filed as necessary in jurisdictions where we do business. Effective October 1, 2014, we issued a revised Master Policy to each of our actual and prospective insureds. The new Master Policy, among other things, adopted provisions sought for inclusion by the GSEs in every master policy in use in the industry. While these changes resulted in the modification of a significant number of terms and conditions from our prior policy, we do not believe use of the new Master Policy will have a material impact on the financial condition or results of operations of our U.S. mortgage insurance business.

Market conduct regulation

The Insurance Laws of U.S. jurisdictions govern the marketplace activities of insurers, affecting the form and content of disclosure to consumers, product illustrations, advertising, product replacement, sales and underwriting practices, and complaint and claims handling, and these provisions are generally enforced through periodic market conduct examinations.

Statutory examinations

Insurance departments in U.S. jurisdictions conduct periodic detailed examinations of the books, records, accounts and business practices of domestic insurers. These examinations generally are conducted in cooperation with insurance departments of two or three other states or jurisdictions representing each of the NAIC zones, under guidelines promulgated by the NAIC.

Guaranty associations and similar arrangements

Most jurisdictions in which our U.S. insurers are licensed require those insurers to participate in guaranty associations which pay contractual benefits owed under the policies of impaired or insolvent insurers. These associations levy assessments, up to prescribed limits, on each member insurer in a jurisdiction on the basis of the proportionate share of the premiums written by such insurer in the lines of business in which the impaired,

insolvent or failed insurer is engaged. Some jurisdictions permit member insurers to recover assessments paid through full or partial premium tax offsets. Aggregate assessments levied against our U.S. insurers were not material to our consolidated financial statements.

Policy and contract reserve sufficiency analysis

The Insurance Laws of their domiciliary jurisdictions require our U.S. life insurers to conduct annual analyses of the sufficiency of their life and health insurance and annuity reserves. Other jurisdictions where insurers are licensed may have certain reserve requirements that differ from those of their domiciliary jurisdictions. In each case, a qualified actuary must submit an opinion stating that the aggregate statutory reserves, when considered in light of the assets held with respect to such reserves, make good and sufficient provision for the insurer’s associated contractual obligations and related expenses. If such an opinion cannot be provided, the insurer must establish additional reserves by transferring funds from surplus. Our U.S. life insurers submit these opinions annually to their insurance regulatory authorities. Different reserve requirements exist for our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries. See “—Mortgage Insurance Regulation—State regulation—Reserves.”

Surplus and capital requirements

Insurance regulators have the discretionary authority, in connection with maintaining the licensing of our U.S. insurers, to limit or restrict insurers from issuing new policies, or policies having a dollar value over certain thresholds, if, in the regulators’ judgment, the insurer is not maintaining a sufficient amount of surplus or is in a hazardous financial condition. We seek to maintain new business and capital management strategies to support meeting related regulatory requirements.

Risk-based capital

The NAIC has established risk-based capital (“RBC”) standards for U.S. life insurers, as well as a risk-based capital model act (“RBC Model Act”). All 50 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the RBC Model Act or a substantially similar law or regulation. The RBC Model Act requires that life insurers annually submit a report to state regulators regarding their RBC based upon four categories of risk: asset risk, insurance risk, interest rate and market risk, and business risk. The capital requirement for each is generally determined by applying factors which vary based upon the degree of risk to various asset, premium and reserve items. The formula is an early warning tool to identify possible weakly capitalized companies for purposes of initiating further regulatory action.

If an insurer’s RBC fell below specified levels, it would be subject to different degrees of regulatory action depending upon the level, ranging from requiring the insurer to propose actions to correct the capital deficiency to placing the insurer under regulatory control. As of December 31, 2014, the RBC of each of our U.S. life insurance subsidiaries exceeded the level of RBC that would require any of them to take or become subject to any corrective action. The consolidated RBC ratio of our U.S. domiciled life insurance subsidiaries was approximately 435% and 485% of the company action level as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

Statutory accounting principles

U.S. insurance regulators developed statutory accounting principles (“SAP”) as a basis of accounting used to monitor and regulate the solvency of insurers. Since insurance regulators are primarily concerned with ensuring an insurer’s ability to pay its current and future obligations to policyholders, statutory accounting conservatively values the assets and liabilities of insurers, generally in accordance with standards specified by the insurer’s domiciliary jurisdiction. Uniform statutory accounting practices are established by the NAIC and are generally adopted by regulators in the various U.S. jurisdictions.

Due to differences in methodology between SAP and U.S. GAAP, the values for assets, liabilities and equity reflected in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP are materially different from those reflected in financial statements prepared under SAP.

Regulation of investments

Each of our U.S. insurers is subject to Insurance Laws that require diversification of its investment portfolio and which limit the proportion of investments in different asset categories. Assets invested contrary to such regulatory limitations must be treated as non-admitted assets for purposes of measuring surplus, and, in some instances, regulations require divestiture of such non-complying investments. We believe the investments made by our U.S. insurers comply with these Insurance Laws.

Federal regulation of insurance products

Most of our variable annuity products, some of our fixed guaranteed products, and all of our variable life insurance products, as well as our FABNs issued as part of our registered notes program are “securities” within the meaning of federal and state securities laws, are registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and are subject to regulation by the SEC. See “—Other Laws and Regulations—Securities regulation.” These products may also be indirectly regulated by FINRA as a result of FINRA’s regulation of broker/dealers and may be regulated by state securities authorities. Federal and state securities regulation similar to that discussed below under “—Other Laws and Regulations—Securities regulation” affects investment advice and sales and related activities with respect to these products. U.S. mortgage products and insurers are also subject to federal regulation discussed below under “—Mortgage Insurance.” In addition, although the federal government does not comprehensively regulate the business of insurance, federal legislation and administrative policies in several areas, including taxation, financial services regulation, and pension and welfare benefits regulation, can also significantly affect the insurance industry.

Dodd-Frank Act and other federal initiatives

Although the federal government generally does not directly regulate the insurance business, federal initiatives often, and increasingly, have an impact on the business in a variety of ways, including limitations on antitrust immunity, tax incentives for lifetime annuity payouts, simplification bills affecting tax-advantaged or tax-exempt savings and retirement vehicles, and proposals to modify the estate tax. In addition, various forms of direct federal regulation of insurance have been proposed in recent years.

In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was enacted and signed into law. The Dodd-Frank Act made extensive changes to the laws regulating financial services firms and requires various federal agencies to adopt a broad range of new implementing rules and regulations, many of which have taken effect. Federal agencies were given significant discretion in drafting the rules and regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition, this legislation mandated multiple studies and reports for Congress, which could in some cases result in additional legislative or regulatory action.

Among other provisions, the Dodd-Frank Act provides for a new framework of regulation of over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives markets which requires us to clear certain types of derivative transactions through clearing organizations. We are subject to the clearing requirement which requires us to post highly liquid securities as initial margin and have cash available to meet daily variation margin demands for most of our new interest rate derivative transactions. The need for initial and variation margin requires us to hold additional liquid, lower-yielding securities as well as cash in our investment portfolio. In addition, over time, we will experience additional collateral requirements for derivative transactions that are not required to be cleared. Certain of our derivative transactions are required to be traded on swap execution facilities, regulated platforms for swap trading. Our derivatives activity is subject to greater transparency due to heightened reporting requirements. As a result of all of these changes which

could make trading derivatives more expensive and difficult to execute, we may have to alter or limit the way we use derivatives in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires many of our swap trading counterparties to register as OTC derivatives dealers. OTC derivatives dealers will be subject to provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act regarding minimum capital and margin posting and collection requirements. OTC derivatives dealers will also be subject to new business conduct standards, disclosure requirements, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, transparency requirements, position limits, limitations on conflicts of interest, and other regulatory burdens (some of which are already in effect). These requirements may increase the overall costs for OTC derivative dealers, which are likely to be passed along, at least partially, to market participants in the form of higher fees or less advantageous dealer marks. Such additional obligations on dealers may make it more difficult and costly for us to enter into certain transactions. They may also render certain of our investment strategies impossible or so costly that they will no longer be economical to implement.

In the case of our U.S. mortgage insurance business, the Dodd-Frank Act requires lenders to retain some of the risk associated with mortgage loans that they sell or securitize, unless the mortgage loans are “Qualified Residential Mortgages” or unless the securitization or security is partially or fully exempted. Under regulations promulgated pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, loans which meet the definition of “Qualified Mortgages” are also eligible as Qualified Residential Mortgages. The legislation and regulations also prohibit a creditor from making a residential mortgage loan unless the creditor makes a reasonable and good faith determination that, at the time the loan is consummated, the consumer has a reasonable ability to repay the loan. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act created the CFPB, which regulates certain aspects of the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services but not the business of insurance. In January 2014, CFPB rules implementing the ability-to-repay and Qualified Mortgage standards contained in the Dodd-Frank Act went into effect. The rules set requirements for how mortgage lenders can demonstrate that they have effectively considered the consumer’s ability to repay a mortgage loan, establish when a mortgage may be classified as a Qualified Mortgage and determine when a lender is eligible for a safe harbor as a presumption that the lender has complied with the ability-to-repay requirements. We expect the rules to have a positive impact on the credit quality of mortgage loans which may benefit our delinquency rates but the rule may have the negative impact of reducing the number of loans originated and therefore available for the mortgage insurance market. The CFPB may issue additional rules or regulations that affect our U.S. mortgage insurance business and may assert jurisdiction over regulatory or enforcement matters in lieu of or in addition to the existing jurisdiction of other federal or state agencies.

The Dodd-Frank Act also establishes a Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”), which is authorized to subject non-bank financial companies, which may include insurance companies, deemed systemically significant to stricter prudential standards and other requirements and to subject such companies to a special orderly liquidation process outside the federal Bankruptcy Code, administered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. FSOC has adopted final rules for evaluating whether a non-bank financial company should be designated as systemically significant. We have not currently been designated as systemically significant by FSOC but this determination could change in the future. Insurance company subsidiaries of systemically significant companies would remain subject to liquidation and rehabilitation proceedings under state law, although the FSOC is authorized to direct that such a proceeding be commenced against the insurer under state law. Systemically significant companies are also required to prepare resolution plans, so-called “living wills,” that set out how they could most efficiently be liquidated if they endangered the U.S. financial system or the broader economy. Insurance companies that are found to be systemically significant are permitted, in some circumstances, to submit abbreviated versions of such plans. Existing and proposed rules regarding heightened prudential standards for systemically significant companies would impose new capital, liquidity, counterparty credit exposure and governance standards, and they would also subject such companies to restrictions on their activities and management if they appear to be at risk of liquidation. There are no exceptions for insurance companies in these regulations, except that in establishing minimum capital requirements for holding companies on a consolidated basis, the Federal Reserve is not required to include insurance activities that are regulated as

insurance at the state level, and is expected to develop and adopt rules on capital standards for insurance companies. FSOC’s potential recommendation of measures to address systemic financial risk could affect our insurance operations as could a future determination that we or our counterparties are systemically significant.

The Dodd-Frank Act establishes a Federal Insurance Office (“FIO”) within the Department of the Treasury. While not having a general supervisory or regulatory authority over the business of insurance, the director of this office will perform various functions with respect to insurance, including serving as a non-voting member of the FSOC and making recommendations to the FSOC regarding insurers to be designated for more stringent regulation. In December 2013, FIO issued a report on alternatives to modernize and improve the system of insurance regulation in the United States, including by increasing national uniformity through either a federal charter or effective action by the states, in particular recommending federal standards and oversight regulations for mortgage insurers. If adopted, we cannot predict what effect, if any, such standards and regulations may have on our U.S. mortgage insurance business. Further, in December 2014, FIO delivered its report to Congress describing the global reinsurance market and its critical role in supporting the U.S. insurance system.

The Dodd-Frank Act imposes new restrictions on the sponsorship of and investment in private equity funds and hedge funds by companies that are affiliated with an insured depository institution. While we are not affiliated with such an institution or with anyone who is, these restrictions may affect the value and salability of any interest we may have in such funds.

A Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group was formed in 2012 under President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to investigate misconduct contributing to the financial crisis through the pooling and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities. The principal focus of this Working Group has been directed at enforcement actions against issuers and servicers of mortgage-backed securities. As the activities of this Working Group are ongoing, we cannot predict what impact, if any, this Working Group may have on the mortgage insurance industry in general and our business in particular.

We cannot predict the requirements of all of the regulations adopted under the Dodd-Frank Act, the effect such legislation or regulations will have on financial markets generally, or on our businesses specifically, the additional costs associated with compliance with such regulations or legislation, or any changes to our operations that may be necessary to comply with the Dodd-Frank Act and the regulations thereunder, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. We also cannot predict whether other federal initiatives will be adopted or what impact, if any, such initiatives, if adopted as laws, may have on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Changes in tax laws

In December 2014, the President signed the 2014 Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 which provided one year retroactive extensions through December 31, 2014 of certain tax benefits to individuals and businesses. Included in the Act was a one-year extension allowing taxpayers whose mortgage debt was forgiven in 2014 to exclude the debt forgiveness from taxable income. Also included in the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 was a provision to allow mortgage insurance premiums as deductible interest for 2014. It is unclear at this time whether these provisions will be extended past 2014 in future legislation. However, we believe that the impact on our U.S. mortgage insurance products will be immaterial regardless of whether or not the provisions are further extended.

In November 2014, the American Business Competitive Act of 2014 was introduced. In general, if enacted, the American Business Competitive Act of 2014 would reduce the corporate tax rate to 25% over 10 years while eliminating certain tax credits and deductions for all businesses. In December 2014, the Republican Staff of the Committee on Finance of the U.S. Senate produced a white paper entitled “Comprehensive Tax Reform for 2015 and Beyond.” Five bipartisan working groups were created to make recommendations for tax reform. At this time, it is unknown what shape either of these legislative initiatives might take and how any final legislation

might affect us and our policyholders. However, if there is final legislation that adopts certain proposals that were previously made regarding taxation of insurance products and insurance companies, it could have a negative effect on the attractiveness of our products.

U.K. Insurance Regulation

General

Insurance and reinsurance businesses in the United Kingdom are authorized by the Prudential Regulatory Authority (“PRA”), and regulated by the PRA and the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”). The PRA is responsible for prudential regulation of banks and insurers, building societies, credit unions and major investment firms, while the FCA is responsible for the conduct of business regulation and the wholesale and retail markets and the authorization of other financial services businesses. The PRA has authorized certain of our U.K. subsidiaries to effect and carry out contracts of insurance in the United Kingdom. Insurers authorized by the PRA in the United Kingdom are generally able to operate throughout the European Union, subject to satisfying certain PRA and FCA requirements and, in some cases, additional local regulatory provisions. Certain of our U.K. subsidiaries operate in other European Union member states through establishment of branch offices.

Supervision

The PRA has adopted a risk-based approach to the supervision of insurers whereby it periodically performs a formal risk assessment of insurance companies or groups conducting business in the United Kingdom. After each risk assessment, the PRA will inform the insurer of its views on the insurer’s risk profile, including details of remedial action the PRA requires and the likely consequences of not taking such actions. The FCA also supervises the management of insurance companies through the “approved persons” regime, which requires insurance companies to obtain FCA approval for any person who performs certain specified “controlled functions” for or in relation to a regulated entity.

In addition, the FCA supervises the sale of general insurance, including certain lifestyle protection and mortgage insurance products. Under FCA rules, persons involved in the sale of general insurance (including insurers and distributors) are prohibited from offering or accepting any inducement in connection with the sale of general insurance that is likely to conflict materially with their duties to insureds. Although the rules do not generally require disclosure of broker compensation, the insurer or distributor must disclose broker compensation at the insured’s request.

The PRA and FCA were created in April 2013, replacing the Financial Services Authority which previously regulated both prudential and conduct of business matters.

Solvency requirements

Under PRA rules, insurers must maintain a minimum amount of capital resources for solvency purposes at all times, the calculation of which depends on the type of risk insured, amount of premiums received, and the type, amount and claims history of the insurer. Failure to maintain the required minimum amount of capital resources is one of the grounds on which the PRA may exercise its wide powers of intervention. In addition, an insurer that is part of a group is required to perform and submit to the PRA a capital resources calculation return in respect of the following:

•

The solvency capital resources available to the U.K. insurer’s European group defined by reference to the U.K. insurer’s ultimate parent company domiciled in the European Economic Area.

•

The solvency capital resources available to the U.K. insurer’s worldwide group defined by reference to the U.K. insurer’s ultimate parent company domiciled outside the European Economic Area. This requirement is only a reporting requirement.

Further, a U.K. insurer is required to report in its annual returns to the PRA all material related party transactions (e.g., intra-group reinsurance, whose value is more than 5% of the insurer’s general insurance business amount).

There will be fundamental changes to the existing solvency capital regime for all insurers and reinsurers operating in Europe as a result of the implementation of the Solvency II directive. Currently, it is expected to become effective on January 1, 2016. At this stage, it is not possible to predict the impact these changes will have on our operations.

Restrictions on dividend payments

The U.K. Companies Act 2006 prohibits U.K. companies from making a distribution such as a dividend to their stockholders unless they have “profits available for distribution,” the determination of which is based on the company’s audited accumulated realized profits (so far as not previously utilized by distribution) less its accumulated realized losses (so far as not previously written off). In addition, our European mortgage insurance and our lifestyle protection insurance businesses, both of which are regulated by the PRA, have committed to the PRA that they will obtain the prior consent of the PRA before taking any management action that has the effect of extracting capital to any company that is directly or indirectly held or controlled by Genworth Financial through either a dividend, return of capital, preference share, loan or otherwise.

Intervention and enforcement

The PRA and FCA have extensive powers to intervene in the affairs of an insurer or authorized person and have the power, among other things, to enforce and take disciplinary measures in respect of breaches of their respective rules. Such powers include the power to vary or withdraw any authorizations. Furthermore, a new feature of regulation of U.K. insurance companies was introduced in April 2013 when the Financial Services Act 2012 came into effect. This has created new powers for the FCA, PRA and the Bank of England to impose requirements on U.K. parent companies of certain regulated firms. The powers allow the regulators to: (i) direct qualifying parent undertakings to comply with specific requirements; (ii) take enforcement action against qualifying parent undertakings if those directions are breached; and (iii) gather information from qualifying parent undertakings. For example, if an authorized firm is in crisis, the new powers may allow a regulator to direct a parent company to provide that firm with capital or liquidity necessary to improve the position of the firm. The definition of “qualifying parent undertakings” could allow the regulators to exercise these powers against an intermediate U.K. parent company of an insurer that is not at the head of the ownership chain. How the FCA, PRA and Bank of England will exercise these powers over unregulated holding companies is currently uncertain but the FCA, PRA and HM Treasury have indicated that they will be used rarely and only where the other regulatory tools available to a regulator are ineffective.

Bermuda Insurance Regulation

The Bermuda Monetary Authority (the “BMA”) regulates all financial institutions operating in or from Bermuda, including our Bermudian captive insurance companies. Specific regulation varies in Bermuda depending on whether the insurance company has been granted a long-term business license or a general business license and by the class under which each company falls within such licenses. Regardless of license or class, all companies are required to maintain minimum capital and surplus levels and minimum solvency standards and are subject to auditing and reporting requirements.

Under Bermuda’s Insurance Act 1978, in addition to the ability to pay dividends from retained earnings subject to certain procedures and compliance with applicable financial margins, Bermuda insurance companies may distribute up to 15% of their total paid-in or contributed capital without the prior approval of the BMA. Insurance companies may apply to the BMA to make distributions in excess of such level.

In recent years, the BMA has adopted new solvency regulations and certain other regulations to enhance its governance and disclosure requirements for insurance companies. The BMA has indicated that such requirements have been proposed in order for Bermuda to achieve consistency with changes being developed by other leading insurance regulators worldwide, and in so doing achieve equivalence with the Solvency II directive. Each of our Bermudian captive insurance companies meet or exceed the new minimum solvency requirements that have been adopted in Bermuda. The BMA continues to refine and adopt various regulations enhancing its governance and disclosure requirements, which requirements have not had a material effect on our Bermudian captive insurance companies’ business, financial condition or results of operations. However, the BMA continues to propose revisions to its solvency, governance and reporting regulations and we cannot be certain of the impact these revisions may have on our Bermudian captive insurance companies or the impact, if any, on our business, financial condition or results of operations. The BMA’s efforts to adopt these revisions are generally proceeding independently of the implementation timeline of the Solvency II directive in Europe.

Mortgage Insurance Regulation

State regulation

General

Mortgage insurers generally are limited by Insurance Laws to directly writing only mortgage insurance business to the exclusion of other types of insurance. Mortgage insurers are not subject to the NAIC’s RBC requirements but certain states and other regulators impose another form of capital requirement on mortgage insurers requiring maintenance of a risk-to-capital ratio not to exceed 25:1. Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corporation (“GMICO”), our primary U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary, had a risk-to-capital ratio of 14.3:1 and 19.3:1 as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. If one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries that is writing business in a particular state fails to maintain that state’s required minimum capital level, we would generally be required to stop writing new business immediately in the state until the insurer re-establishes the required regulatory level of capital or receives a waiver of such requirement from the state’s insurance regulator or, alternatively, until we establish an alternative source of underwriting capacity such as an affiliated insurer which meets state regulatory capital-related requirements and has been approved as an eligible mortgage guaranty insurer by the GSEs.

Historically, when our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries have exceeded the maximum state regulatory risk-to-capital ratio of 25:1, they have operated pursuant to regulatory forbearance (typically in the form of a waiver or the regulatory equivalent thereof) or instead operated through affiliated insurers that met applicable state regulatory requirements and where we had obtained GSE approval of the affiliates as eligible insurers (subject to specified conditions). While it is our expectation that our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries will continue to meet their regulatory capital requirements, should GMICO in the future exceed required risk-to-capital levels, we would pursue required regulatory and GSE forbearance and approvals or pursue approval for the utilization of alternative insurance vehicles. However, there can be no assurance if, and on what terms, such forbearance and approvals may be obtained.

During 2012, the NAIC established a Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Working Group (the “MGIWG”) to determine and make recommendations to the NAIC’s Financial Condition Committee as to what, if any, changes to make to the solvency and other regulations relating to mortgage guaranty insurers. During 2014, the MGIWG published a revised draft of the previously proposed amendments of the NAIC’s Mortgage Guaranty Insurers Model Act (the “MGI Model”) and solicited comments on these revised proposed amendments. The proposed amendments of the MGI Model relate to, among other things: (i) capital and reserve standards, including increased minimum capital and surplus requirements, mortgage guaranty-specific risk-based capital standards, dividend restrictions and contingency and premium deficiency reserves; (ii) limitations on the geographic concentration of mortgage guaranty risk, including state-based limitations; (iii) restrictions on mortgage insurers’ investments in notes secured by mortgages; (iv) prudent underwriting standards and formal underwriting guidelines to be approved by the insurer’s board; (v) the establishment of formal, internal “Mortgage Guaranty

Quality Control Programs” with respect to in-force business; (vi) prohibitions on reinsurance with bank captive reinsurers; and (vii) incorporation of an NAIC “Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Standards Manual.” At this time we cannot predict the outcome of this process, the effect changes, if any, will have on the mortgage guaranty insurance market generally, or on our businesses specifically, the additional costs associated with compliance with any such changes, or any changes to our operations that may be necessary to comply, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. We also cannot predict whether other regulatory initiatives will be adopted or what impact, if any, such initiatives, if adopted as laws, may have on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Reserves

Insurance Laws require our U.S. mortgage insurers to establish a special statutory contingency reserve in their statutory financial statements to provide for losses in the event of significant economic declines. Annual additions to the statutory contingency reserve must equal 50% of net earned premiums as defined by Insurance Laws. These contingency reserves generally are held until the earlier of (i) the time that loss ratios exceed 35% or (ii) 10 years, although regulators have granted discretionary releases from time to time. This reserve reduces the policyholder surplus of our U.S. mortgage insurers, and therefore, their ability to pay dividends to us. Since the loss ratio of our U.S. mortgage insurers exceeded 35% in 2014, the regulator granted us approval to release a portion of the statutory contingency reserve in accordance with prescribed Insurance Laws. As a result, the statutory contingency reserve for our U.S. mortgage insurers was approximately $193 million as of December 31, 2014.

Federal regulation

In addition to federal laws directly applicable to mortgage insurers, the laws and regulations applicable to mortgage originators and lenders, purchasers of mortgage loans such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and governmental insurers such as the FHA and VA indirectly affect mortgage insurers. For example, changes in federal housing legislation and other laws and regulations that affect the demand for private mortgage insurance may have a material effect on private mortgage insurers. Legislation or regulation that increases the number of people eligible for FHA or VA mortgages could have a materially adverse effect on our ability to compete with the FHA or VA.

The Homeowners Protection Act provides for the automatic termination, or cancellation upon a borrower’s request, of private mortgage insurance upon satisfaction of certain conditions. The Homeowners Protection Act applies to owner-occupied residential mortgage loans regardless of lien priority and to borrower-paid mortgage insurance closed after July 29, 1999. FHA loans are not covered by the Homeowners Protection Act. Under the Homeowners Protection Act, automatic termination of mortgage insurance would generally occur once the loan-to-value ratio reaches 78%. A borrower generally may request cancellation of mortgage insurance once the actual payments reduce the loan balance to 80% of the home’s original value. For borrower-initiated cancellation of mortgage insurance, the borrower must have a “good payment history” as defined by the Homeowners Protection Act.

The Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act of 1974 (“RESPA”) applies to most residential mortgages insured by private mortgage insurers. Mortgage insurance has been considered in some cases to be a “settlement service” for purposes of loans subject to RESPA. Subject to limited exceptions, RESPA precludes us from providing services to mortgage lenders free of charge, charging fees for services that are lower than their reasonable or fair market value, and paying fees for services that others provide that are higher than their reasonable or fair market value. In addition, RESPA prohibits persons from giving or accepting any portion or percentage of a charge for a real estate settlement service, other than for services actually performed. Although many states prohibit mortgage insurers from giving rebates, RESPA has been interpreted to cover many non-fee services as well. Mortgage insurers and their customers are subject to the possible sanctions of this law, which may be enforced by the CFPB, state insurance departments, state attorneys general and other enforcement authorities.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) also affect the business of mortgage insurance in various ways. ECOA, for example, prohibits discrimination against certain protected classes in credit transactions. FCRA governs the access and use of consumer credit information in credit transactions and requires notices to consumers in certain circumstances.

Most originators of mortgage loans are required to collect and report data relating to a mortgage loan applicant’s race, nationality, gender, marital status and census tract to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Administration or the Federal Reserve under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (“HMDA”). The purpose of HMDA is to detect possible impermissible discrimination in home lending and, through disclosure, to discourage such discrimination. Mortgage insurers are not required to report HMDA data although, under the laws of several states, mortgage insurers currently are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of certain classifications. Mortgage insurers, through the U.S. Mortgage Insurers Trade Association, voluntarily submit to the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council data on loans submitted for insurance like that required for most mortgage lenders under HMDA.

The North Carolina Department of Insurance’s (“NCDOI”) current regulatory framework by which GMICO’s risk-to-capital ratio is calculated differs from the draft capital requirement methodology intended to be effective under the new PMIERs released publicly on July 10, 2014 by the FHFA. These requirements, as currently drafted, contemplate an effective date for compliance 180 days after the final publication date and final publication currently is anticipated to be on or about the end of the first quarter of 2015. In addition, the guidelines permit a transition period, subject to GSE approval, of two years from the publication date to meet the required capital levels. We provided comments on September 8, 2014 pursuant to the public request for input and we will continue to work with the FHFA and GSEs in an effort to have appropriate refinements made before the new guidelines are finalized.

We previously disclosed our estimates of the additional capital required to meet the revised draft PMIERs in their current form and operate our business as being between $500 million and $700 million as of the date the new requirements are anticipated to become effective. Our estimate is based on the revised draft PMIERs, as we understand them, and is subject to change. In this regard, the amount of additional capital that will be required to meet the Net Asset Requirements, as defined in the revised draft PMIERs, and operate our business is dependent upon, among other things, (i) the extent the final PMIERs as ultimately adopted differ materially from the current draft, including with respect to the amount and timing of additional capital requirements and the amount of capital credit provided to various types of assets; (ii) the way the requirements are applied and interpreted by the GSEs and FHFA as and after they are implemented; (iii) the future performance of the U.S. housing market; (iv) our generating and having expected U.S. mortgage insurance business earnings, available assets and risk-based required assets (including as they relate to the value of the shares of our Canadian mortgage insurance subsidiary that are owned by our U.S. mortgage insurance business as a result of share price and foreign exchange movements or otherwise), reducing risk in-force and reducing delinquencies as anticipated, and writing anticipated amounts and types of new U.S. mortgage insurance business; and (v) our projected overall financial performance, capital and liquidity levels being as anticipated. As a result, the amount of required capital may vary significantly from the amounts currently anticipated.

We currently believe we have a variety of sources we could utilize to satisfy these capital requirements, and currently intend to utilize primarily reinsurance (or similar) transactions, together with cash available at the holding company, to satisfy them. Our use of reinsurance or similar transactions depends upon, among other things, the availability of the markets for these transactions, the costs and other terms of reinsurance or the other transactions, the GSEs’ approach to, and the capital treatment for, these reinsurance or the other transactions, the performance of the U.S. mortgage insurance business, and the absence of unforeseen developments. Another potential capital source includes, but is not limited to, the issuance of securities by Genworth Financial or Genworth Holdings.

We currently intend that our U.S. mortgage insurance business will meet the additional capital requirements contained in the revised draft PMIERs by the anticipated effective date. We will seek to utilize the transition period provided for in the draft guidelines if we do not comply by the anticipated effective date (subject to GSE approval).

In September 2014, we received a letter from Fannie Mae in conjunction with the revised draft PMIERs to supplement the existing MI Eligibility Standards. In that letter, our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries and other mortgage insurers in the U.S. mortgage insurance industry are required to, among other things, adhere to specified conditions beyond those contained in the MI Eligibility Standards as set forth in the letter. These new regulatory measures are expected to remain in effect until the PMIERs are finalized and effective. In particular, Fannie Mae is requiring our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries to obtain their written approval prior to taking any of the following actions:

•

Enter into any new or alter any existing capital support agreement, assumption of liabilities, or guaranty agreement (except for contractual agreements in the normal course of business);

•

Enter into any new arrangements or alter any existing arrangements under lease, tax-sharing, and intercompany expense-sharing agreements;

•

Make any investment, contribution, or loan to any affiliates, subsidiaries or non-affiliated entities;

•

Pay dividends to its affiliates or its holding company;

•

Enter into any new risk novation or commutation transaction;

•

Incur or assume an obligation or indebtedness, contingent or otherwise, including, without limitation, an obligation to provide additional insurance, or related service or product, or to provide remedy to an obligation of a subsidiary;

•

Permit a material change in, or acquisition of, control or beneficial ownership (deemed to occur if any person or entity or group of persons or entities acquires or seeks to acquire 10% or more of the voting securities or securities convertible into voting securities);

•

Make changes to its corporate or legal structure;

•

Transfer or otherwise shift its assets, risk, or liabilities to any subdivision, segment, or segregated or separate account or a U.S. mortgage insurance affiliate or subsidiary;

•

Assume any material risk other than directly providing mortgage guaranty insurance;

•

Provide capital, capital support, or financial guaranty to any U.S. mortgage insurance affiliate or subsidiary that is either an approved insurer or an exclusive affiliated reinsurer;

•

Enter into any new or alter any existing reinsurance or risk sharing transaction; and

•

With respect to lender captive reinsurance arrangements:

•

Allow lender captive reinsurance providers to pay dividends or distribute funds to the parent or affiliates of the lender captive reinsurer in amounts greater than permitted by the lender captive reinsurance contract;

•

Effect a material or economically adverse alteration or amendment to a lender captive reinsurance contract; and

•

Terminate any lender captive reinsurance contract unless it would receive at least 80% of the value of assets in the captive trust.

While we currently do not believe that these new regulatory measures imposed by Fannie Mae will have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations, we continue to assess the potential impact, if any, that these new regulatory measures may have on our U.S. mortgage insurance business.

International regulation

Canada

The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (“OSFI”) provides oversight to all federally incorporated financial institutions, including our Canadian mortgage insurance companies, which are indirect

wholly-owned subsidiaries of Genworth Canada. In June 2012, OSFI was given oversight responsibility for CMHC, our main competitor. OSFI does not have enforcement powers over market conduct issues in the insurance industry, which are a provincial responsibility. The Bank Act, Insurance Companies Act and Trust and Loan Companies Act prohibit Canadian banks, trust companies and insurers from extending mortgage loans where the loan value exceeds 80% of the property’s value, unless mortgage insurance is obtained in connection with the loan. As a result, all mortgages issued by these financial institutions with a loan-to-value ratio exceeding 80% must be insured by a qualified insurer or CMHC. Legislation became effective in Canada in 2010 that, among other things, amended these statutes to prohibit such financial institutions from charging borrowers amounts for mortgage insurance that exceed the lender’s actual costs and impose disclosure obligations in respect of mortgage insurance.

PRMHIA came into force on January 1, 2013 and terminates our pre-existing guarantee agreement with the government. Under PRMHIA, the Canadian government guarantees the benefits payable under mortgage insurance policies, less 10% of the original principal amount of an insured loan, in the event that we fail to make claim payments with respect to that loan because of insolvency. We pay the Canadian government a risk fee for this guarantee. Because banks are not required to maintain regulatory capital on an asset backed by a sovereign guarantee, our 90% sovereign guarantee permits lenders purchasing our mortgage insurance to reduce their regulatory capital charges for credit risks on mortgages by 90%. As a result of the elimination of the guarantee fund, we are required to hold higher regulatory capital under PRMHIA and the Insurance Companies Act of Canada. However, the increase in required capital was predominantly offset by the increase in available capital that results from the guarantee fund assets reverting back to us.

On November 6, 2014, OSFI published the final B-21 Residential Mortgage Insurance Underwriting Practices and Procedures Guideline (the “B-21 Guideline”). In the B-21 Guideline, OSFI set out principles that focus on three main areas: governance of the underwriting process, interactions with lenders and internal risk management of the underwriting process. The B-21 Guideline also enhances disclosure requirements intended to support greater transparency, clarity and public confidence in mortgage insurers’ residential mortgage insurance underwriting practices. The implementation deadline of the B-21 Guideline is June 30, 2015 and Genworth Canada expects to be in compliance by this date.

Under PRMHIA and the Insurance Companies Act of Canada, Genworth Canada is required to meet a minimum capital test (“MCT”) to support its outstanding mortgage insurance in-force. The MCT ratio is calculated based on a model developed by OSFI. On June 23, 2013, OSFI communicated that it has commenced an internal process aimed at developing a new capital framework for mortgage insurers expected to be effective in 2017. In the third quarter of 2014, OSFI published an interim MCT guideline for mortgage insurers effective January 1, 2015. This guideline was developed by adjusting the 2015 MCT guideline applicable to property and casualty insurers to reflect the specific characteristics of the mortgage insurance business until the new capital framework for mortgage insurers is developed. The implementation of the interim MCT in 2015 is not expected to have a significant impact on Genworth Canada’s MCT ratio.

The Insurance Companies Act of Canada provides that dividends may only be declared by the board of directors of the Canadian insurer and paid if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the payment of the dividend would not cause the insurer to be in violation of its minimum capital and liquidity requirements. Also, we are required to notify OSFI prior to the dividend payment.

As a public company that is traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange (the “TSX”), Genworth Canada is subject to securities laws and regulation in each province in Canada, as well as the reporting requirements of the TSX.

Australia

APRA regulates all ADIs in Australia and life, general and mortgage insurance companies. APRA’s license conditions require Australian mortgage insurers to be monoline insurers, which are insurers offering just one type of insurance product. APRA’s regulations apply to individual licensed insurers and to the relevant Australian-based holding company and group.

APRA also sets minimum capital levels and monitors corporate governance requirements, including the risk management strategy for our Australian mortgage insurance business. In this regard, APRA reviews our management, controls, processes, reporting and methods by which all risks are managed, including an annual financial condition report and an annual report on insurance liabilities by an appointed actuary. APRA also requires us to submit our risk management strategy and reinsurance management strategy, which outlines our use of reinsurance in Australia, annually and more frequently if there are material changes.

In setting minimum capital levels for mortgage insurers, APRA requires them to ensure they have sufficient capital to withstand a hypothetical three-year stress loss scenario defined by APRA. These regulations include increased mortgage insurers’ capital requirements for insured loans that are considered to be non-standard. APRA also imposes quarterly reporting obligations on mortgage insurers with respect to risk profiles, reinsurance arrangements and financial position.

In addition, APRA determines the capital requirements for ADIs and has reduced capital requirements for certain ADIs that insure residential mortgages with an “acceptable” mortgage insurer for all non-standard mortgages and for standard mortgages with loan-to-value ratios above 80%. APRA’s regulations currently set out a number of circumstances in which a loan may be considered to be non-standard from an ADI’s perspective. The capital levels for Australian internal ratings-based ADIs are determined by their APRA-approved internal ratings-based models, which may or may not allocate capital credit for LMI. We believe that APRA and the internal ratings-based ADIs have not yet finalized internal models for residential mortgage risk, so we do not believe that the internal ratings-based ADIs currently benefit from an explicit reduction in their capital requirements for mortgages covered by mortgage insurance. APRA rules also provide that LMI on a non-performing loan (90 days plus arrears) protects most ADIs from having to increase the regulatory capital on the loan to a risk-weighting of 100%. These regulations include a definition of an “acceptable” mortgage insurer and eliminate the reduced capital requirements for ADIs in the event that the mortgage insurer has contractual recourse to the ADI or a member of the ADI’s consolidated group.

In December 2013, the Australian government announced that there would be an inquiry into Australia’s financial system. The Financial System Inquiry (“FSI”) made a number of recommendations, which were released by the Australian government in December 2014. The FSI has recommended, among other things, that capital levels for internal ratings-based ADIs be raised against residential real estate risks and that lenders mortgage insurance be recognized for bank capital credit purposes where appropriate. The FSI has also recommended narrowing the average risk-weight gap between average risk-weights for the internal ratings-based ADIs and other ADIs to help competition. In releasing the FSI’s recommendations, the Australian Treasurer commented that the FSI’s recommendations on bank capital are for APRA and the Reserve Bank of Australia (“RBA”) to be considered as independent regulators.

APRA has the power to impose restrictions on Genworth Australia’s ability to declare and pay dividends based on a number of factors, including the impact on the minimum regulatory capital ratio of our Australian mortgage insurance business.

As a public company that is traded on the Australian Securities Exchange (the “ASX”), Genworth Australia is subject to Australian securities laws and regulation, as well as the reporting requirements of the ASX.

United Kingdom and Europe

The United Kingdom is a member of the European Union and applies the harmonized system of regulation set out in the European Union regulations and directives. Our authorization to provide mortgage insurance in the United Kingdom enables us to offer our products in all the European Union member states, subject to certain regulatory requirements of the PRA and FCA and, in some cases, local regulatory requirements. We can provide mortgage insurance only in the classes for which we have authorization under applicable regulations and must maintain required risk and capital reserves. We are also subject to the oversight of other regulatory agencies in

other countries throughout Europe where we do business. For more information about U.K. insurance regulation that affects our mortgage subsidiaries that operate in the United Kingdom, see “—U.K. Insurance Regulation.”

Other Non-U.S. Insurance Regulation

We operate in a number of countries around the world in addition to the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and Bermuda. Generally, our subsidiaries (and in some cases our branches) conducting business in these countries must obtain licenses from local regulatory authorities and satisfy local regulatory requirements, including those relating to rates, forms, capital, reserves and financial reporting.

Other Laws and Regulations

Securities regulation

Certain of our U.S. subsidiaries and certain policies, contracts and services offered by them, are subject to regulation under federal and state securities laws and regulations of the SEC, state securities regulators and FINRA. Most of our insurance company separate accounts are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Most of our variable annuity contracts and all of our variable life insurance policies, as well as our FABNs issued by one of our U.S. subsidiaries as part of our registered notes program are registered under the Securities Act of 1933. One of our U.S. subsidiaries is registered and regulated as a broker/dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a member of, and subject to regulation by FINRA, as well as by various state and local regulators. The registered representatives of our broker/dealer are also regulated by the SEC and FINRA and are subject to applicable state and local laws.

These laws and regulations are primarily intended to protect investors in the securities markets and generally grant supervisory agencies broad administrative powers, including the power to limit or restrict the conduct of business for failure to comply with such laws and regulations. In such event, the possible sanctions that may be imposed include suspension of individual employees, limitations on the activities in which the broker/dealer may engage, suspension or revocation of the investment adviser or broker/dealer registration, censure or fines. We may also be subject to similar laws and regulations in the states and other countries in which we offer the products described above or conduct other securities-related activities.

Certain of our U.S. subsidiaries also sponsor and manage investment vehicles that rely on certain exemptions from registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Securities Act of 1933. Nevertheless, certain provisions of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Securities Act of 1933 apply to these investment vehicles and the securities issued by such vehicles in certain circumstances. The Investment Company Act of 1940, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933, including the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, are subject to change, which may affect our U.S. subsidiaries that sponsor and manage such investment vehicles.

The SEC, FINRA, state attorneys general, other federal offices and the New York Stock Exchange may conduct periodic examinations, in addition to special or targeted examinations of us and/or specific products. These examinations or inquiries may include, but are not necessarily limited to, product disclosures and sales issues, financial and accounting disclosure and operational issues. Often examinations are “sweep exams” whereby the regulator reviews current issues facing the financial or insurance industry as a whole.

Environmental considerations

As an owner and operator of real property, we are subject to extensive U.S. federal and state and non-U.S. environmental laws and regulations. Potential environmental liabilities and costs in connection with any required remediation of such properties is also an inherent risk in property ownership and operation. In addition, we hold equity interests in companies, and have made loans secured by properties, that could potentially be subject to environmental liabilities. We routinely have environmental assessments performed with respect to real estate

being acquired for investment and real property to be acquired through foreclosure. We cannot provide assurance that unexpected environmental liabilities will not arise. However, based upon information currently available to us, we believe that any costs associated with compliance with environmental laws and regulations or any remediation of such properties will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

ERISA considerations

We provide certain products and services to employee benefit plans that are subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) or the Internal Revenue Code. As such, our activities are subject to the restrictions imposed by ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, including the requirement under ERISA that fiduciaries must perform their duties solely in the interests of ERISA plan participants and beneficiaries, and fiduciaries may not cause or permit a covered plan to engage in certain prohibited transactions with persons who have certain relationships with respect to such plans. The applicable provisions of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code are subject to enforcement by the U.S. Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

USA PATRIOT Act

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (the “Patriot Act”), enacted in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, contains anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws and mandates the implementation of various new regulations applicable to broker/dealers and other financial services companies including insurance companies. The Patriot Act seeks to promote cooperation among financial institutions, regulators and law enforcement entities in identifying parties who may be involved in terrorism or money laundering. Anti-money laundering laws outside of the United States contain similar provisions. The increased obligations of financial institutions to identify their customers, watch for and report suspicious transactions, respond to requests for information by regulatory authorities and law enforcement agencies, and share information with other financial institutions, require the implementation and maintenance of internal practices, procedures and controls. We believe that we have implemented, and that we maintain, appropriate internal practices, procedures and controls to enable us to comply with the provisions of the Patriot Act. Certain additional requirements became applicable under the Patriot Act in May 2006 through a U.S. Treasury regulation which required that certain insurers have anti-money laundering compliance plans in place. We believe our internal practices, procedures and controls comply with these requirements.

Privacy of consumer information

U.S. federal and state laws and regulations require financial institutions, including insurance companies, to protect the security and confidentiality of consumer financial information and to notify consumers about the companies’ policies and practices relating to their collection and disclosure of consumer information and their policies relating to protecting the security and confidentiality of that information. Similarly, federal and state laws and regulations also govern the disclosure and security of consumer health information. In particular, regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Trade Commission and various states regulate the disclosure and use of protected health information by health insurers and others, the physical and procedural safeguards employed to protect the security of that information, including certain notice requirements in the event of security breaches, and the electronic transmission of such information. Congress and state legislatures are expected to consider additional legislation relating to privacy and other aspects of consumer information.

In Europe, the collection and use of personal information is subject to strict regulation. The European Union’s Data Protection Directive establishes a series of privacy requirements that European Union member states are obliged to enact into their national legislation. Certain European Union countries have additional national law requirements regarding the use of private data. Other European countries that are not European

Union member states have similar privacy requirements in their national laws. These requirements generally apply to all businesses, including insurance companies. In general, companies may process personal information only if consent has been obtained from the individuals concerned or if certain other conditions are met. These other requirements include the provision of notice to customers and other persons concerning how their personal information is used and disclosed, limitations on the transfer of personal information to countries outside the European Union, registration with the national privacy authorities, where applicable, and the use of appropriate information security measures against the access or use of personal information by unauthorized persons. Similar laws and regulations protecting the security and confidentiality of consumer and financial information are also in effect in Canada, Australia and other countries in which we operate.

Employees

As of December 31, 2014, we had approximately 5,300 full-time and part-time employees.

Directors and Executive Officers

See Part III, Item 10 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for information about our directors and executive officers.

Available Information

Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act are available, without charge, on our website, www.genworth.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after we file or furnish such reports with the SEC. The public may read and copy any materials we file or furnish with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. Copies of our SEC filed or furnished reports are also available, without charge, from Genworth Investor Relations, 6620 West Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23230.

Our website also includes the charters of our Audit Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, Risk Committee, and Management Development and Compensation Committee, any key practices of these committees, our Governance Principles, and our company’s code of ethics. Copies of these materials also are available, without charge, from Genworth Investor Relations, at the above address. Within the time period required by the SEC and the New York Stock Exchange, we will post on our website any amendment to our code of ethics and any waiver applicable to any of our directors, executive officers or senior financial officers.

On June 9, 2014, our President and Chief Executive Officer certified to the New York Stock Exchange that he was not aware of any violation by us of the New York Stock Exchange’s corporate governance listing standards.

Transfer Agent and Registrar

Our Transfer Agent and Registrar is Computershare Shareowner Services LLC, P.O. Box 30170, College Station, TX 77842-3170. Telephone: 866-229-8413; 201-680-6578 (outside the United States and Canada may call collect); and 800-231-5469 (for hearing impaired).

Item 1A.

Risk Factors

You should carefully consider the following risks. These risks could materially affect our business, results of operations or financial condition, cause the trading price of our common stock to decline materially or cause our actual results to differ materially from those expected or those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by us or on our behalf. These risks are not exclusive, and additional risks to which we are subject include, but are not limited to, the factors mentioned under “Cautionary note regarding forward-looking statements” and the risks of our businesses described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Risks Relating to All of Our Businesses

We may be unable to successfully develop and execute strategic plans to effectively address our current business challenges.

In connection with the release of our results for the fourth quarter of 2014, we announced that we are conducting a thorough review of our portfolio exploring all options to maximize long-term stockholder value and that we are taking proactive measures to leverage our strengths, namely in our Global Mortgage Insurance Division, and rationalize our portfolio, including reducing costs and debt levels. As part of these measures, we are embarking on a multi-step restructuring plan targeting significant cash savings over the next two years. In addition, we are progressing on our plan to sell our lifestyle protection insurance business, which had previously been designated as a non-core business for us. We expect to realize a significant loss on any sale of our lifestyle protection insurance business given its current book value. We are also pursuing and considering other actions. We cannot be sure we will be able to successfully develop and execute strategic plans to effectively address our current business challenges (including with respect to our long-term care insurance business, ratings and capital), including as a result of: (a) our failure to attract buyers for our lifestyle protection insurance business and any other businesses or other assets we may seek to sell, or securities we may seek to issue (if any), in each case, in a timely manner on anticipated terms; (b) our inability to generate required capital; (c) our failure to obtain any required regulatory, stockholder and/or noteholder approvals or consents or anticipated credit or financial strength ratings; (d) our challenges changing or being more costly or difficult to successfully address than we currently anticipate or the benefits achieved being less than we anticipate; (e) our inability to achieve anticipated cost-savings; and (f) adverse tax or accounting charges. In addition, even if we are successful in developing and executing our strategic plans, the execution of these plans may have expected or unexpected adverse consequences, including adverse rating actions and adverse tax and accounting charges (such as losses on sale).

We may be unable to increase the capital needed in our businesses in a timely manner and on anticipated terms, including through improved business performance, reinsurance or similar transactions, asset sales, securities offerings or otherwise, in each case as and when required.

We have in the past provided, and currently expect to provide, additional capital to our businesses as necessary (and to the extent we determine it is appropriate to do so) to meet regulatory capital requirements, comply with rating agency requirements, provide capital and liquidity buffers for our businesses to operate and meet unexpected cash flow obligations. We may not be able to fund or raise the required capital as and when required and the amount of capital required may be higher than anticipated. Our inability to fund or raise the capital required in the anticipated timeframes and on the anticipated terms, could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition, including causing us to reduce our business levels or be subject to a variety of regulatory actions.

For example, we intend to further increase capital in our U.S. life insurance business in order to (i) address the reduction in capital resulting from the completion of a comprehensive review of our long-term care insurance claim reserves and (ii) enhance our financial strength and flexibility to maintain our commercial presence and provide for unforeseen events or developments. To increase capital in our U.S. life insurance business, we intend, among other things, at least over the near term, not to pay dividends from our life insurance subsidiaries

to the holding company, pursue additional long-term care insurance rate actions, seek opportunities to reduce risk in older blocks of our long-term care insurance business, utilize reinsurance, pursue block transactions or other sales and significantly reduce expenses.

In addition, we intend to support the increased capital needs of our U.S. mortgage insurance business resulting from the revised draft PMIERs. To address the increased capital needs of our U.S. mortgage insurance business, we intend to utilize primarily reinsurance (or similar) transactions, together with cash available at the holding company. The implementation of these actions depends on market conditions, third-party approvals or other actions (including approval by regulators), and other factors which are outside of our control, and therefore we cannot be sure we will be able to successfully implement these actions on the anticipated timetable and terms or at all, or achieve the anticipated benefits. For a discussion of factors affecting our estimate of the amount of additional capital that will be required to meet the revised draft PMIERs and operate our business and our ability to utilize reinsurance or similar transactions to satisfy these capital requirements, see “—If we are unable to meet the capital requirements mandated by the PMIERs in the form ultimately adopted because the capital requirements are higher than we currently anticipate or otherwise, we may not be eligible to write new insurance on loans sold to or guaranteed by the GSEs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.”

Although we do not currently intend to do so, if circumstances change we may decide to issue equity at Genworth Financial, which would be dilutive to our shareholders, or debt at Genworth Financial or Genworth Holdings (including debt convertible into equity of Genworth Financial), which would increase our leverage. The availability of any additional debt or equity funding will depend on a variety of factors, including, market conditions, regulatory considerations, the general availability of credit and particularly, to the financial services industry, our credit ratings and credit capacity and the performance of and outlook for our business. Market conditions may make it difficult to obtain funding or complete asset sales to generate additional liquidity, especially on short notice and when the demand for additional funding in the market is high. Our access to funding may be further impaired if our credit or financial strength ratings are negatively impacted.

If our reserves for future policy claims are inadequate as a result of deviations from our estimates and actuarial assumptions or other reasons, we may be required to increase our reserves, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

We calculate and maintain reserves for estimated future payments of claims to our policyholders and contractholders in accordance with U.S. GAAP and industry accounting practices. We release these reserves as those future obligations are paid, experience changes or the policy lapses. The reserves we establish reflect estimates and actuarial assumptions with regard to our future experience. These estimates and actuarial assumptions involve the exercise of significant judgment. Our future financial results depend significantly upon the extent to which our actual future experience is consistent with the assumptions and methodologies we have used in pricing our products and calculating our reserves. Small changes in assumptions or small deviations of actual experience from assumptions can have, and in the past had, material impacts on our reserves, results of operations and financial condition. Many factors, and changes in these factors, can affect future experience, including, but not limited to, interest rates; investment returns and volatility; economic and social conditions, such as inflation, unemployment, home price appreciation or depreciation, and health care experience (including type of care and cost of care); policyholder persistency or lapses (i.e., the probability that a policy or contract will remain in-force from one period to the next); insured life expectancy or longevity; insured morbidity (i.e., frequency and severity of claim, including claim termination rates and benefit utilization rates); future premium increases; expenses; and doctrines of legal liability and damage awards in litigation. Because these factors are not known in advance, change over time, are difficult to accurately predict and are inherently uncertain, we cannot determine with precision the ultimate amounts we will pay for actual claims or the timing of those payments. In addition, we include assumptions for significant anticipated (but not yet filed) future premium rate increases or benefit reductions in our determination of loss recognition testing of our long-term care insurance reserves under U.S. GAAP and asset adequacy testing of our statutory long-term care insurance reserves (except for our New York

insurance subsidiary). We may not be able to realize these anticipated rate increases or benefit reductions in the future as a result of our inability to obtain required regulatory approvals or other factors. In this event, we would have to increase our long-term care insurance reserves by amounts that could be material. Moreover, we may not be able to mitigate the impact of unexpected adverse experience by increasing premiums and/or other charges to policyholders (when we have the right to do so) or alternatively by reducing benefits.

We regularly review our reserves and associated assumptions as part of our ongoing assessment of our business performance and risks. If we conclude that our reserves are insufficient to cover actual or expected policy and contract benefits and claim payments (as we have on certain occasions in the past) as a result of changes in experience, assumptions or otherwise, we would be required to increase our reserves and incur charges in the period in which we make the determination. The amounts of such increases may be significant (as they have been on occasions in the past) and this could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition and may require us to generate or fund additional capital in our businesses.

The prices and expected future profitability of our long-term care insurance, life insurance and some annuity products are based upon expected claims and payment patterns, using assumptions for, among other things, projected interest rates and investment returns, morbidity rates, mortality rates (i.e., likelihood of death of our policyholders and contractholders), persistency, lapses and expenses. The long-term profitability of these products depends upon how our actual experience compares with our pricing and valuation assumptions. For example, if morbidity rates are higher than our pricing assumptions, we could be required to make greater payments and thus establish additional reserves under our long-term care insurance policies than we had projected, and such amounts could be significant. Likewise, if mortality rates are lower than our pricing assumptions, we could be required to make greater payments and thus establish additional reserves under both our long-term care insurance policies and annuity contracts and such amounts could be significant. Conversely, if mortality rates are higher than our pricing and valuation assumptions, we could be required to make greater payments under our life insurance policies and annuity contracts with GMDBs than we had projected. If any of our assumptions are inaccurate, our reserves may be inadequate, which may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and business.

The risk that our lapse experience may differ significantly from our pricing assumptions is significant for our term life insurance policies. These policies generally have a level premium period for a specified period of years (e.g., 10 years to 30 years), after which the premium may increase significantly. The level premium period for a significant portion of our term life insurance policies will end in the next few years and policyholders may lapse with greater frequency than we anticipate in our reserve assumptions. In addition, it may be that healthy policyholders are the ones who lapse (as they can more easily replace coverage at a lower cost), creating adverse selection where less healthy policyholders remain in our portfolio. If the frequency of lapses is higher than our reserve assumptions, we would experience higher DAC amortization and lower premiums and could experience higher benefit costs. We have somewhat limited experience on which to base both the lapse assumption and the mortality assumption after the end of the level premium period, which increases the uncertainty associated with our assumptions and reserve levels. However, we have experienced both a greater frequency of policyholder lapses and more severe adverse selection, after the level premium period, and this experience could continue or worsen.

The risk that our claims experience may differ significantly from our pricing assumptions is particularly significant for our long-term care insurance products. Long-term care insurance policies provide for long-duration coverage and, therefore, our actual claims experience will emerge over many years after pricing and locked-in valuation assumptions have been established. For example, changes in economic and interest rate risk, socio-demographics, behavioral trends (e.g., location of care and level of benefit use) and medical advances, among other factors, may have a material adverse impact on our future loss trends. Moreover, long-term care insurance does not have the extensive claims experience history of life insurance, and as a result, our ability to forecast future claim costs for long-term care insurance is more limited than for life insurance.

We recently completed a comprehensive review of our long-term care insurance claim reserves. This review was commenced as a result of adverse claims experience during the second quarter of 2014 and in connection with our regular review of our claim reserve assumptions during the third quarter of each year. As a result of this review, we made changes to our assumptions and methodologies relating to our long-term care insurance claim reserves primarily impacting claim termination rates, most significantly in later-duration claims, and benefit utilization rates, reflecting that claims are not terminating as quickly and claimants are utilizing more of their available benefits in aggregate than had previously been assumed in our reserve calculations. As a result of these changes, we increased our long-term care insurance claim reserves by $604 million, before reinsurance, during the third quarter of 2014.

During the fourth quarter of 2014, we completed our annual loss recognition testing of our long-term care insurance business and made changes to our assumptions and methodologies primarily impacting claim termination rates, most significantly in later-duration claims, and benefit utilization rates. As a result, we recorded additional long-term care insurance reserves of $731 million, before reinsurance, during the fourth quarter of 2014 on our acquired block. Our loss recognition testing for our long-term care insurance products is reviewed in the aggregate, excluding our acquired block of long-term care insurance, which is tested separately. Our long-term care insurance business, excluding the acquired block, had positive margin which was dependent on the assumptions we made on our ability to successfully implement our in-force management strategy involving premium increases or reduced benefits. In the fourth quarter of 2014, we began including future rate actions in our loss recognition testing in addition to those rate actions that had already been filed and approved or awaiting regulatory approval. Favorable impacts on our margin from rate actions would primarily impact our long-term care insurance block, excluding the acquired block. Our acquired block would not benefit significantly from additional rate actions as it is older. For our acquired block of long-term care insurance, the impacts of any adverse changes in assumptions would immediately be reflected in net income (loss) as our margin for this block was zero after the reserve increase in the fourth quarter of 2014. For our long-term care insurance block, excluding the acquired block, any adverse changes in assumptions would only be reflected in net income (loss) to the extent the margin was reduced below zero.

We also perform cash flow testing separately for each of our U.S. life insurance companies on a statutory accounting basis. To the extent that the cash flow testing margin is negative, we would need to increase statutory reserves, which would decrease our risk-based capital ratios and we may be required to increase our capital within our U.S. life insurance companies. A need to significantly increase statutory reserves could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The NYDFS, which regulates our New York domiciled insurance subsidiary, has historically not allowed long-term care insurance cash flow testing results to be combined with other products and has required specific adequacy scenarios that are generally more severe than testing required in other states and have a disproportionate impact on our long-term care insurance products. Based on our annual statutory cash flow testing of our long-term care insurance business in 2014, our New York insurance subsidiary recorded $39 million of additional statutory reserves in the fourth quarter of 2014 and will record an aggregate of $156 million of additional statutory reserves over the next four years. For additional information regarding impacts to statutory capital as a result of reserve increases, see “—An adverse change in our regulatory requirements, including risk-based capital, could result in a decline in our ratings and/or increased scrutiny by regulators and have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition and business.”

We will continue to regularly review our methodologies and assumptions in light of emerging experience and may be required to make further adjustments to our long-term care insurance reserves in the future. Any further changes to our long-term care insurance reserves may have a materially negative impact on our results of operations, financial condition and business.

Our risk management programs may not be effective in identifying or adequate in controlling or mitigating the risks we face.

We have developed risk management programs that include risk identification, quantification, governance, policies and procedures and seek to appropriately identify, monitor, measure, control, mitigate and report the types of risks to which we are subject. We regularly review our risk management programs and work to update them on an ongoing basis to be consistent with evolving global best market practices. However, our risk management programs may not fully control or mitigate all of the risks we face in our business.

Many of our methods of managing certain financial risks (e.g. credit, market, insurance and underwriting risks) are based on observed historical market behaviors and/or historical, statistically-based models. Historical measures may not accurately predict future exposures, which could be significantly greater than historical measures have indicated. We have also established internal risk limits based upon these historical, statistically-based models and we monitor compliance with these limits. Our internal risk limits may be insufficient and our monitoring may not detect all violations (inadvertent or otherwise) of these limits. Other risk management methods are based on our evaluation of information regarding markets, customers and customer behavior, macroeconomic and environmental conditions, catastrophic occurrences and potential changing paradigms that are publicly available or otherwise accessible to us. This collective information may not always be accurate, complete, up to date or properly considered, interpreted or evaluated in our analyses. Moreover, the models and other parts of our risk management programs we rely on in managing various aspects of our business may prove in practice to be less predictive than we expect for a variety of reasons, including as a result of issues arising in the construction, implementation, interpretation or use of the models or other programs or the use of inaccurate assumptions. The limitations of our models and other parts of our risk management programs may be material, and could lead us to make wrong or sub-optimal decisions in managing our risk and other aspects of our business and this could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and business.

The risks related to our models often increase when we change assumptions or methodologies or add or change to new modeling systems. For example, with respect to our long-term care insurance business, we had an error related to claims in course of settlement arising in connection with the implementation of our updated assumptions and methodologies as part of our comprehensive claims review completed in the third quarter of 2014. In addition, we intend to continue to enhance our modeling capabilities for various of our businesses, including for our long-term care insurance business where we are migrating to a new modeling system in 2015 or later. We believe these enhancements will provide us with access to more timely information, more granular information and better forecasting capabilities. However, during or after the implementation of these enhancements, we may discover errors or other deficiencies in existing models, assumptions and methodologies. Moreover, we will use the additional, more granular and more detailed information in our reserving and other processes, which may cause us to refine or otherwise change existing assumptions and methodologies and associated reserve levels, all of which could have a material adverse impact on business, results of operations and financial condition.

Management of operational, legal, franchise and global regulatory risks requires, among other things, methods to appropriately identify all such key risks, systems to record incidents and policies and procedures designed to detect, record and address all such risks and occurrences. If our risk management framework does not effectively identify, measure and control our risks, we could suffer unexpected losses or be adversely affected and that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We employ various strategies, including hedging and reinsurance, to mitigate financial risks inherent in our business and operations. These risks include current or future changes in the fair value of our assets and liabilities, current or future changes in cash flows, the effect of interest rates, changes in equity markets, credit

spread movements, the occurrence of credit and counterparty defaults, currency fluctuations, changes in global housing prices, and changes in mortality, morbidity and lapses. We seek to control these risks by, among other things, entering in reinsurance contracts and derivative instruments. Such contracts and instruments may not always be available to us and subject us to counter party credit risk. Developing effective strategies for dealing with these risks is a complex process, and no strategy can fully insulate us from such risks. The execution of these strategies also introduces operational risks and considerations. See “—Reinsurance may not be available, affordable or adequate to protect us against losses” and “—Defaults by counterparties to our reinsurance arrangements or to derivative instruments we use to hedge our business risks, or defaults by us on agreements we have with these counterparties, may expose us to risks we sought to mitigate, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition” for more information about risks inherent in our reinsurance and hedging strategies.

We may choose to retain certain levels of financial risk, even when it is possible to mitigate these risks. The decision to retain certain levels of financial risk is predicated on our belief that the expected future returns that we will realize from retaining the risk, in relation to the level of risk retained, is favorable, but it may turn out that our expectations are incorrect and we incur material costs or suffer other adverse consequences that arise from the retained risk.

Our performance is highly dependent on our ability to manage risks that arise from day-to-day business activities, including underwriting, claims processing, policy administration and servicing, execution of our investment and hedging strategy, actuarial estimates and calculations, financial and tax reporting and other activities, many of which are very complex. We seek to monitor and control our exposure to risks arising out of or related to these activities through a variety of internal controls, management review processes and other mechanisms. However, the occurrence of unforeseen events, or the occurrence of events of a greater magnitude than expected, including those arising from inadequate or ineffective controls, a failure in processes, procedures or systems implemented by us or a failure on the part of employees upon which we rely in this regard, may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Past or future misconduct by our employees or employees of our vendors or suppliers could result in violations of laws by us, regulatory sanctions against us and/or serious reputational, legal or financial harm to our business, and the precautions we employ to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. Although we employ controls and procedures designed to monitor the business decisions and activities of these individuals to prevent us from engaging in inappropriate activities, excessive risk taking, fraud or security breaches, these individuals may take such risks regardless of such controls and procedures and such controls and procedures may fail to detect all such decisions and activities. Our compensation policies and procedures are reviewed by us as part of our overall risk management program, but it is possible that such compensation policies and practices could inadvertently incentivize excessive or inappropriate risk taking. If these individuals take excessive or inappropriate risks, those risks could harm our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Recent adverse rating agency actions have resulted in a loss of business and adversely affected our results of operations, financial condition and business and future adverse rating actions could have a further and more significant adverse impact on us.

Financial strength ratings, which various rating agencies publish as measures of an insurance company’s ability to meet contractholder and policyholder obligations, are important to maintaining public confidence in our products, the ability to market our products and our competitive position. Credit ratings, which rating agencies publish as measures of an entity’s ability to repay its indebtedness, are important to our ability to raise capital through the issuance of debt and other forms of credit and to the cost of such financing.

Over the last several years, the ratings of our holding company and several of our insurance companies have been downgraded, placed on negative outlook and/or put on review for potential downgrade on various occasions. A ratings downgrade, negative outlook or review could occur (and has occurred) for a variety of

reasons, including reasons specifically related to our company, generally related to our industry or the broader financial services industry or as a result of changes by the rating agencies in their methodologies or rating criteria. We may be at risk of additional ratings downgrades in the future, particularly in light of the recent increases to our long-term care insurance reserves. A negative outlook on our ratings or a downgrade in any of our financial strength or credit ratings, the announcement of a potential downgrade, negative outlook or review, or customer, investor, regulator or other concerns about the possibility of a downgrade, negative outlook or review, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and business.

Following the release of our results for each of the third quarter of 2014 (including the increase of our long-term care insurance claim reserves) and the fourth quarter of 2014 (including the increase of our long-term care insurance reserves as a result of loss recognition testing), rating agencies took a variety of adverse ratings actions with respect to Genworth Holdings. On November 6, 2014, Moody’s announced, among other things, that it has placed the credit ratings of Genworth Holdings on review for downgrade. On February 11, 2015, Moody’s announced, among other things, that it had downgraded the credit ratings of Genworth Holdings to “Ba1” from “Baa3.” This action concluded the review for downgrade of Genworth Holding’s credit ratings initiated on November 6, 2014. On November 6, 2014, S&P announced, among other things, that it had lowered the issuer credit and senior unsecured debt ratings of Genworth Holdings to “BB+” from “BBB-” with a negative outlook. On February 18, 2015, S&P announced, among other things, that it that it had lowered the issuer credit and senior unsecured debt ratings on Genworth Holdings to “BB-” from “BB+” with a negative outlook. In December 2014, A.M. Best also placed Genworth Holdings issuer credit rating and existing debt ratings under review with negative credit implications. On February 13, 2015, A.M. Best announced that it downgraded the Genworth Holdings issuer credit rating and existing debt ratings to “bbb-” from “bbb.” The rating agencies also took a variety of adverse ratings actions with respect to the financial strength ratings of certain of our insurance subsidiaries after the announcement of our results for both the third and fourth quarters of 2014. See “Item 1—Business—Financial Strength Ratings” for information regarding these adverse rating actions and the current financial strength ratings of our principal insurance subsidiaries.

The direct or indirect effects of such adverse ratings actions or any future actions could include, but are not limited to:

•

reducing new sales of our products;

•

adversely affecting our relationships with distributors, independent sales intermediaries and our dedicated sales specialists, including the loss of exclusivity under certain agreements with our independent sales intermediaries and distribution partners;

•

causing us to lose key distributors that have ratings requirements that we may no longer satisfy (or resulting in our renegotiation of new, less favorable arrangements with those distributors);

•

requiring us to modify some of our existing products or services to remain competitive, or introduce new products or services;

•

materially increasing the number or amount of policy surrenders, withdrawals and loans by contractholders and policyholders;

•

requiring us to post additional collateral for our derivatives or hedging agreements (including those providing us with protection against certain foreign currency exchange movement, interest rate fluctuation and equity market risk) or enabling the counterparties to these agreements to exercise their right to terminate all transactions under the agreements;

•

requiring us to provide support in the form of collateral, capital contributions or letters of credit under the terms of certain of our reinsurance, securitization and other agreements;

•

adversely affecting our ability to maintain reinsurance or obtain new reinsurance or obtain it on reasonable pricing and other terms;

•

regulators requiring certain of our subsidiaries to maintain additional capital, limiting thereby our financial flexibility and requiring us to raise additional capital;

•

adversely affecting our ability to raise capital;

•

increasing our cost of borrowing and making it more difficult to borrow in the public debt markets and replace our credit agreement when it expires in 2016; and

•

making it more difficult to execute strategic plans to effectively address our current business challenges.

Following the adverse rating actions after the announcement of our results for the third quarter of 2014, several distributors suspended distribution related to our U.S. Life Insurance Division’s products. Those distributors represented, in aggregate, approximately 18%, 16% and 9%, respectively, of 2014 sales of our linked-benefits, annuities and long-term care insurance products. We expect we will continue to be adversely impacted by recent rating actions. Any further adverse ratings announcements or actions likely would have, or intensify, the adverse impact of the direct or indirect effects discussed above (among others), all of which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition and business.

In addition, the GSEs require maintenance of a financial strength rating by at least two out of three listed rating agencies (S&P, Fitch and Moody’s) of at least “AA-”/“Aa3” (as applicable) under the GSE MI Eligibility Standards. These MI Eligibility Standards provide that if these requirements are not met additional limitations or requirements may be imposed in the case of Fannie Mae or will be imposed in the case of Freddie Mac for eligibility to insure loans purchased by the GSEs. Currently, we do not meet the ratings requirements of the GSE MI Eligibility Standards. In February 2008, the GSEs temporarily suspended their ratings requirements for top tier mortgage insurers, subject to submission of an acceptable remediation plan. We have submitted remediation plans to both GSEs. The GSEs are reviewing the MI Eligibility Standards and have proposed the revised draft PMIERs as modifications to these standards. In conjunction with that review, and as a condition to us being eligible to continue to insure mortgage loans sold to Fannie Mae prior to the finalization of the PMIERs, Fannie Mae has imposed additional restrictions on us in addition to the existing MI Eligibility Standards. See “Item 1—Business—Regulation—Mortgage Insurance Regulation” for additional information. We cannot be sure those limitations will not have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition and business. Our inability to insure new mortgage loans sold to the GSEs, or the transfer by the GSEs of our existing policies to an alternative mortgage insurer, would have a materially adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

If we are unable to retain, attract and motivate qualified employees and sales representatives our results of operations, financial condition and sales of our products may be adversely impacted.

Our continued success is largely dependent on our ability to retain and attract qualified employees. We face intense competition in retaining and attracting key employees, including actuarial, finance, legal, investment, risk, compliance and other professionals. Additionally, we may not be able to meet regulatory requirements relating to required expertise in various professional positions.

Our ability to retain, attract and motivate experienced and qualified employees has been more challenging in light of our recent financial difficulties and our announced expense reductions, as well as the demands being placed on our employees. We cannot be sure we will be able to attract, retain and motivate the desired workforce, and our failure to do so could have a material adverse effect on results of operations, financial condition and business.

Our retention challenges include our independent sales representatives. We rely on independent sales representatives to distribute our insurance products and services to independent brokers, banks, broker-dealers and other third-party distributors. There is strong competition among financial services companies for effective sales representatives. We compete with other financial services companies for sales representatives primarily on the basis of our financial strengths, support services, compensation and product offerings. If we are unable to retain and attract sufficient sales representatives to sell our products, our ability to compete and generate revenues from new sales would be adversely impacted.

An adverse change in our regulatory requirements, including risk-based capital, could result in a decline in our ratings and/or increased scrutiny by regulators and have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition and business.

Our domestic life insurance subsidiaries are subject to the NAIC’s RBC standards and other minimum statutory capital and surplus requirements imposed under the laws of their respective states of domicile. The failure of our insurance subsidiaries to meet applicable RBC requirements or minimum statutory capital and surplus requirements could subject our insurance subsidiaries to further examination or corrective action imposed by state insurance regulators, including limitations on their ability to write additional business, or the addition of state regulatory supervision, rehabilitation, seizure or liquidation.

Our domestic mortgage insurers are not subject to the NAIC’s RBC requirements but are required by certain states and other regulators to maintain a certain risk-to-capital ratio. The failure of our domestic mortgage insurance subsidiaries to meet their regulatory requirements, in addition to the proposed changes to the GSE MI Eligibility Standards, could limit our ability to write new business. For further discussion of the importance of risk-to-capital requirements to our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries, see “—If we are unable to meet the capital requirements mandated by the PMIERs in the form ultimately adopted because the capital requirements are higher than we currently anticipate or otherwise, we may not be eligible to write new insurance on loans sold to or guaranteed by the GSEs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition” and “—Our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries are subject to minimum statutory capital requirements and hazardous financial condition standards which, if not met or waived, would result in restrictions or prohibitions on our doing business and could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations.”

Additionally, our international insurance subsidiaries also have minimum regulatory requirements which vary by country. As described under “Item 1—Business—Regulation—U.K. Insurance Regulation—Solvency requirements,” there will be fundamental changes to the existing solvency capital regime for all insurers and reinsurers operating in Europe as a result of the introduction of the Solvency II directive, which is expected to become effective on January 1, 2016. Increases in capital requirements as a result of Solvency II may be required and may impact our operating results. Furthermore, as discussed in “Item 1—Business—Regulation—U.K. Insurance Regulation—Intervention and enforcement” above, the PRA, FCA and Bank of England have powers to impose certain requirements on U.K. parent companies of insurers. Moreover, our Canadian regulator, OSFI, released a discussion paper on proposed changes to the Regulatory Capital Framework for Property and Casualty Insurers, and OSFI noted that it has commenced an internal process aimed at developing a new capital framework for mortgage insurers expected to be effective in 2017. At this stage, it is not possible to predict the impact these changes will have on our operations.

An adverse change in our RBC, risk-to-capital ratio or other minimum regulatory requirements also could cause rating agencies to downgrade the financial strength ratings of our insurance subsidiaries and the credit ratings of Genworth Holdings, which would have an adverse impact on our ability to write and retain business and could cause regulators to take regulatory or supervisory actions with respect to our businesses, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and business.

As holding companies, we and Genworth Holdings depend on the ability of our respective subsidiaries to pay dividends and make other payments and distributions to each of us and to meet our obligations.

We and Genworth Holdings each act as a holding company for our respective subsidiaries and do not have any significant operations of our own. Dividends from our respective subsidiaries, permitted payments to us under tax sharing and expense reimbursement arrangements with our subsidiaries and proceeds from borrowings are our principal sources of cash to meet our obligations. These obligations include operating expenses and interest and principal on current and any future borrowings and amounts owed to GE under the Tax Matters Agreement. If the cash we receive from our respective subsidiaries pursuant to dividends and tax sharing and expense reimbursement

arrangements is insufficient to fund any of these obligations, or if a subsidiary is unable or unwilling for any reason to pay dividends to either of us, we or Genworth Holdings may be required to raise cash through, among other things, the incurrence of debt (including convertible or exchangeable debt), the sale of assets or the issuance of equity.

The payment of dividends and other distributions by our insurance subsidiaries is dependent on, among other things, the performance of the subsidiaries, is subject to corporate law restrictions, and is regulated by insurance laws and regulations. In general, dividends in excess of prescribed limits are deemed “extraordinary” and require insurance regulatory approval. In addition, insurance regulators may prohibit the payment of ordinary dividends or other payments by the insurance subsidiaries (such as a payment under a tax sharing agreement or for employee or other services) if they determine that such payment could be adverse to policyholders or contractholders. Moreover, as a consequence of our recent adverse financial results, the regulators who have governance over our international mortgage insurance subsidiaries may impose additional restrictions over such subsidiaries using the broad prudential authorities available to the major regulators. Courts typically grant regulators significant deference when considering challenges of an insurance company to a determination by insurance regulators to grant or withhold approvals with respect to dividends and other distributions.

In addition, as a public company that is traded on the TSX, Genworth Canada is subject to securities laws and regulations in each province in Canada, as well as the rules of the TSX. These applicable laws, regulations and rules include but are not limited to, obligations and procedures in respect of the equal and fair treatment of all shareholders of Genworth Canada. Although the board of directors of Genworth Canada is composed of a majority of Genworth nominees, under Canadian law each director has an obligation to act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of Genworth Canada. Moreover, as a public company that is traded on the ASX, Genworth Australia and its subsidiaries are subject to Australian securities laws and regulations, as well as the rules of the ASX. These applicable laws, regulations and rules include but are not limited to, obligations and procedures in respect of the equal and fair treatment of all shareholders of Genworth Australia. Although the board of directors of Genworth Australia is composed of a majority of Genworth designated directors, under Australian law each director has an obligation to exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interests of Genworth Australia and for a proper purpose. Accordingly, actions taken by Genworth Canada and Genworth Australia and their respective boards of directors (including the payment of dividends to us) are subject to, and may be limited by, the laws, regulations and rules applicable to such entities.

In connection with our plan to increase capital in our U.S. life insurance business, we intend, at least over the near term, not to pay dividends from our life insurance subsidiaries to Genworth Holdings. See “—We may be unable to increase the capital needed in our businesses in a timely manner and on anticipated terms, including through improved business performance, reinsurance or similar transactions, asset sales, securities offerings or otherwise, in each case as and when required.” We expect our international subsidiaries to be the sole source of cash dividends paid to us at least in the near term as we continue to strengthen the capital position of our U.S. life insurance and U.S. mortgage insurance businesses, and therefore our liquidity and capital positions are particularly dependent on the performance of those subsidiaries and their ability to pay dividends to us as anticipated.

Fifty percent of our in-force long-term care insurance business (excluding policies assumed from MetLife Insurance Company USA, a non-affiliate third-party reinsurer) of Genworth Life Insurance Company (“GLIC”), a Delaware insurance company and our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, is reinsured to Brookfield Life and Annuity Insurance Company Limited (“BLAIC”), a Bermuda insurance company and our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary. Brookfield, a Bermuda insurance company and our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, has guaranteed BLAIC’s performance of its obligations under that reinsurance agreement. As of December 31, 2014, Brookfield directly or indirectly owns 66.2% of our Australian mortgage insurance subsidiaries, 40.6% of our Canadian mortgage insurance subsidiary and 100% of our lifestyle protection insurance business. As a result of Brookfield’s guarantee, adverse developments in our reinsured long-term care insurance business (including the recent increases in our reserves of that business) have adversely impacted BLAIC’s financial condition, which could, in turn, adversely impact Brookfield’s willingness or ability to pay dividends to Genworth Holdings,

including from the dividends it receives and is expected to receive in the future from our Canadian and Australian mortgage insurance businesses. We intend to seek regulatory approvals to effectively unwind the long-term care insurance reinsurance agreement between GLIC and BLAIC and release the related Brookfield guarantee thereof; however, we do not know whether or when the required approvals will be obtained and what conditions, if granted, may be imposed. Our inability to receive dividends related to our Australian and Canadian mortgage insurance businesses from Brookfield as anticipated or the inability of Brookfield to sell or otherwise dispose of shares of the businesses it owns or distribute the proceeds from any such sale to us, would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition and business.

An inability to borrow under our credit facility could result in a reduction in our liquidity.

On September 26, 2013, we entered into a credit agreement that provides a $300 million multi-currency revolving credit facility, with a $100 million sublimit for letters of credit, available on a revolving basis until September 26, 2016. Currently there are no borrowings outstanding under the credit facility. Our ability to borrow is subject to compliance with various financial and other covenants and conditions, including that, since June 30, 2013, there has been no event, development or circumstance that had or could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect (as defined in the credit agreement). We cannot predict whether we will be able to meet the borrowing conditions in the event we were to need or want to borrow in the future.

Downturns and volatility in global economies and equity and credit markets could materially adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Our results of operations are materially affected by the state of the global economies in which we operate and conditions in the capital markets we access. Factors such as high unemployment, low consumer spending, low business investment, high government spending, the volatility and strength of the global capital markets, and inflation all affect the business and economic environment and, ultimately, the demand for and terms of our products and results of operations of our business. The recessionary state and the volatility of many economies in the past have fueled uncertainty and downturns in global mortgage markets and have contributed to increased volatility in our business and results of operations. This uncertainty and volatility has impacted, and may impact in the future, the demand for certain financial and insurance products. As a result, we may experience an elevated incidence of claims and lapses or surrenders of policies, and some of our policyholders may choose to defer paying insurance premiums or stop paying insurance premiums altogether.

Rising unemployment or underemployment rates can, for example, negatively impact a borrower’s ability to pay his or her mortgage, thereby increasing the likelihood that we could incur additional losses in our mortgage insurance businesses. We set loss reserves for our mortgage insurance businesses based in part on expected claims and delinquency cure rate patterns. These expectations reflect our assumptions regarding unemployment and underemployment levels. If unemployment levels are higher than those within our loss reserving assumptions, the claims frequency and severity for our mortgage insurance businesses could be higher than we had projected.

Downturns and volatility in equity markets may also cause some existing customers to withdraw cash values or reduce investments in our separate account products, which include variable annuities. In addition, if the performance of the underlying mutual funds in our separate account products experience downturns and volatility for an extended period of time, the payment of any living benefit guarantee available in certain variable annuity products may have an adverse effect on us, because more payments will be required to come from general account assets than from contractholder separate account investments. Continued equity market volatility could result in additional losses in our variable annuity products and associated hedging program, which will further challenge our ability to recover deferred acquisition costs (“DAC”) on these products and could lead to additional write-offs of DAC, as well as increased hedging costs.

Interest rates and changes in rates could materially adversely affect our business and profitability.

Our insurance and investment products are sensitive to interest rate fluctuations and expose us to the risk that falling interest rates or credit spreads will reduce our margin or the difference between the returns we earn on the investments that support our obligations under these products and the amounts that we must pay to policyholders and contractholders. We may reduce the interest rates we credit on most of these products only at limited, pre-established intervals, and some contracts have guaranteed minimum interest crediting rates. As a result, historically low interest rates over the last few years have adversely impacted, and may continue to materially adversely impact, our business and profitability.

During periods of increasing market interest rates, we may offer higher crediting rates on interest-sensitive products, such as universal life insurance and fixed annuities, and we may increase crediting rates on in-force products to keep these products competitive. In addition, rapidly rising interest rates may cause increased policy surrenders, withdrawals from life insurance policies and annuity contracts and requests for policy loans, as policyholders and contractholders shift assets into higher yielding investments. Therefore, increases in crediting rates, as well as surrenders and withdrawals, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations, including the requirement to liquidate fixed-income investments in an unrealized loss position to satisfy surrenders or withdrawals.

Our life insurance, long-term care insurance and fixed annuity products, as well as our guaranteed benefits on variable annuities, also expose us to the risk of interest rate fluctuations. The pricing and expected future profitability of these products are based in part on expected investment returns. Over time, life and long-term care insurance products are expected to generally produce positive cash flows as customers pay periodic premiums, which we invest as they are received. Low interest rates increase reinvestment risk and reduce our ability to achieve our targeted investment margins and have, and may further, adversely affect the profitability of our life insurance, long-term care insurance and fixed annuity products, as well as increase hedging costs on our in-force block of variable annuity products. A low interest rate environment negatively impacts the sufficiency of our margins on both our DAC and present value of future profits (“PVFP”). If interest rates remain low for a prolonged period, this could result in an impairment of these assets, and may reduce funds available to pay claims, including life and long-term care insurance claims, requiring an increase in our reserve liabilities, which could be significant (such as has been the case with our long-term care insurance business recently). In addition, certain statutory capital requirements are based on models that consider interest rates. Prolonged periods of low interest rates may increase the statutory reserves we are required to hold as well as the amount of assets and capital we must maintain to support statutory reserves.

In certain products, in particular our long-term care insurance products, the average life of our assets is considerably shorter than the average life of the liabilities. This increases our reinvestment rate risk with respect to the assets. Should interest rates remain low or go lower, this will cause our net investment income to be lower which will negatively impact the profitability of our businesses. In addition, to the extent the assets are of a shorter average life than the liabilities (especially as is the case with our long-term care insurance products), changes in interest rates will impact assets and liabilities differently. As interest rates decline, the net present value of the liabilities will therefore increase more than the net present value of the assets and could require us to hold higher reserves.

In both the U.S. and international mortgage markets, rising interest rates generally reduce the volume of new mortgage originations. A decline in the volume of new mortgage originations would have an adverse effect on our new insurance written. Rising interest rates also can increase the monthly mortgage payments for insured homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages (“ARMs”) that could have the effect of increasing default rates on ARM loans, thereby increasing our exposure on our mortgage insurance policies. This is particularly relevant in our international mortgage insurance business where ARMs are the predominant mortgage product.

Declining interest rates historically have increased the rate at which borrowers refinance their existing mortgages, thereby resulting in cancellations of the mortgage insurance covering the refinanced loans. Declining

interest rates historically have also contributed to home price appreciation, which may provide borrowers in the United States with the option of cancelling their mortgage insurance coverage earlier than we anticipated when pricing that coverage. These cancellations could have a material adverse effect on the results of our U.S. mortgage insurance business.

Interest rate fluctuations could also have an adverse effect on the results of our investment portfolio. During periods of declining market interest rates like over the past few years, the interest we receive on variable interest rate investments decreases. In addition, during those periods, we have had to, and in the future may have to, reinvest the cash we receive as interest or return of principal on our investments in lower-yielding high-grade instruments or in lower-credit instruments to maintain comparable returns. Issuers of fixed-income securities have also, and in the future may also decide to prepay their obligations in order to borrow at lower market rates, which exacerbates the risk that we have to invest the cash proceeds of these securities in lower-yielding or lower-credit instruments. During periods of increasing interest rates, market values of lower-yielding assets will decline. In addition, our interest rate hedges could decline which would require us to post additional collateral with our derivative counterparties.

Increasing interest rates may require us to post additional collateral for derivatives that we hold to mitigate interest rate risk. Posting this collateral could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operation by reducing our liquidity and net investment income, to the extent that the additional collateral posting requires us to invest in higher-quality, lower-yielding investments.

See “Part II—Item 7A—Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” for additional information about interest rate risk.

Reinsurance may not be available, affordable or adequate to protect us against losses.

As part of our overall risk and capital management strategy, we have historically purchased reinsurance from external reinsurers as well as provided internal reinsurance support for certain risks underwritten by our various business segments. These reinsurance arrangements enable our businesses to transfer risks in exchange for some of the associated economic benefits and, as a result, improve our statutory capital position and manage risk to within our tolerance level. Some of these reinsurance arrangements are indefinite, but others require periodic renewals. The availability and cost of reinsurance protection are impacted by our operating and financial performance, including ratings, as well as conditions beyond our control. For example, our recent financial challenges and adverse rating actions may reduce the availability of certain types of reinsurance and make it more costly when it is available, as reinsurers are less willing to take on credit risk in a volatile market. Accordingly, we may be forced to incur additional expenses for reinsurance or may not be able to obtain new reinsurance or renew existing reinsurance arrangements on acceptable terms, or at all, which could increase our risk and adversely affect our ability to write future business or obtain statutory capital credit for new reinsurance or could require us to make capital contributions to maintain regulatory capital requirements. See “—If we are unable to meet the capital requirements mandated by the PMIERs in the form ultimately adopted because the capital requirements are higher than we currently anticipate or otherwise, we may not be eligible to write new insurance on loans sold to or guaranteed by the GSEs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.”

Defaults by counterparties to our reinsurance arrangements or to derivative instruments we use to hedge our business risks, or defaults by us on agreements we have with these counterparties, may expose us to risks we sought to mitigate, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

We routinely execute reinsurance and derivative transactions with reinsurers, brokers/dealers, commercial banks, investment banks and other institutional clients to mitigate our risks in various circumstances and to hedge various business risks. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of default of our

counterparty or client or change in collateral value. Reinsurance does not relieve us of our direct liability to our policyholders, even when the reinsurer is liable to us. Accordingly, we bear credit risk with respect to our reinsurers. We cannot be sure that our reinsurers will pay the reinsurance recoverable owed to us now or in the future or that they will pay these recoverables on a timely basis. A reinsurer’s insolvency, inability or unwillingness to make payments under the terms of its reinsurance agreement with us could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Collateral is often posted by the counterparty to offset this risk, however, we bear the risk that the collateral declines in value or otherwise is inadequate to fully compensate us in the event of a default. We also enter into a variety of derivative instruments, including options and interest rate and currency swaps with a number of counterparties. If our counterparties fail or refuse to honor their obligations under the derivative instruments, and collateral posted, if any, is inadequate, our hedges of the related risk will be ineffective. In addition, if we trigger downgrade provisions on risk-hedging or reinsurance arrangements, the counterparties to these arrangements may be able to terminate our arrangements with them or require us to take other measures, such as post additional collateral, contribute capital or provide letters of credit. The loss of material risk-hedging or reinsurance arrangements could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. We ceded to UFLIC our in-force structured settlements block of business issued prior to 2004, certain variable annuity business issued prior to 2004 and the long-term care insurance assumed from MetLife Insurance Company USA. UFLIC has established trust accounts for our benefit to secure its obligations under the reinsurance arrangements, and General Electric Capital Corporation, an indirect subsidiary of GE, has agreed to maintain UFLIC’s RBC above a specified minimum level. If UFLIC becomes insolvent notwithstanding this agreement, and the amounts in the trust accounts are insufficient to pay UFLIC’s obligations to us, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our valuation of fixed maturity, equity and trading securities uses methodologies, estimations and assumptions that are subject to change and differing interpretations which could result in changes to investment valuations that may materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Fixed maturity, equity and trading securities are reported at fair value on our consolidated balance sheets. They represent the majority of our total cash, cash equivalents and invested assets. Our portfolio of fixed maturity securities consists primarily of investment grade securities. Valuations use inputs and assumptions that are less observable or require greater estimation, as well as valuation methods that are more complex or require greater estimation, thereby resulting in values that are less certain and may vary significantly from the value at which the investments may be ultimately sold. The methodologies, estimates and assumptions we use in valuing our investment securities evolve over time and are subject to different interpretation (including based on developments in relevant accounting literature), all of which can lead to changes in the value of our investment securities. Rapidly changing and unanticipated interest rate, credit and equity market conditions could materially impact the valuation of investment securities as reported within our consolidated financial statements, and the period-to-period changes in value could vary significantly. Decreases in value may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

Defaults or other events impacting the value of our fixed maturity securities portfolio may reduce our income.

We are subject to the risk that the issuers or guarantors of fixed maturity securities we own may default on principal or interest payments they owe us. As of December 31, 2014, fixed maturity securities of $62.4 billion in our investment portfolio represented 80% of our total cash, cash equivalents and invested assets. Events reducing the value of our investment portfolio other than on a temporary basis could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Levels of write-downs or impairments are impacted by our assessment of the financial condition of the issuer, whether or not the issuer is expected to pay its principal and interest obligations or circumstances that would require us to sell securities which have declined in value.

Our investment portfolio includes investments in securities issued by foreign issuers, including companies from the European Union and Russia. Recently, certain European Union member states and Russia have experienced financial difficulties that have triggered, and in the future may trigger, adverse financial consequences in the United States and international markets. In particular, a number of large European banks hold significant amounts of sovereign financial institution debt of other European nations and could experience difficulties as a result of defaults or declines in the value of such debt. If we determine to reposition or realign portions of the portfolio or otherwise determine to sell certain securities in an unrealized loss position, we will incur an other-than-temporary impairment charge.

Defaults on our commercial mortgage loans or the mortgage loans underlying our investments in commercial mortgage-backed securities and volatility in performance may adversely affect our profitability.

Our commercial mortgage loans and investments in commercial mortgage-backed securities face default risk. Commercial mortgage loans are stated on our consolidated balance sheets at unpaid principal balance, adjusted for any unamortized premium or discount, deferred fees or expenses, and are net of impairments and valuation allowances. We establish valuation allowances for estimated impairments as of the balance sheet date based on information, such as the market value of the underlying real estate securing the loan, any third-party guarantees on the loan balance or any cross collateral agreements and their impact on expected recovery rates. Commercial mortgage-backed securities are stated on our consolidated balance sheets at fair value.

Further, any concentration of geographic, sector or counterparty exposure in our commercial mortgage loans or the mortgage loans underlying our investments in commercial mortgage-backed securities may have adverse effects on our investment portfolio and consequently on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition. While we seek to mitigate this risk by having a broadly diversified portfolio, events or developments that have a negative effect on any particular geographic region, sector or counterparty may have a greater adverse effect on the investment portfolios to the extent that the portfolios are exposed to such geographic region, sector or counterparty.

Competitors could negatively affect our ability to maintain or increase our market share and profitability.

Our businesses are subject to intense competition. We believe the principal competitive factors in the sale of our products are product features, product investment returns, price, commission structure, marketing and distribution arrangements, brand, reputation, financial strength ratings and service. In many of our product lines, we face competition from competitors that have greater market share or breadth of distribution, offer a broader range of products, services or features, assume a greater level of risk, have lower profitability expectations or have higher financial strength ratings than we do. Our recent financial challenges have adversely and directly impacted the competitiveness of our life, annuity and long-term care insurance businesses, and indirectly adversely impacted our mortgage insurance business. In addition, many competitors offer similar products and use similar distribution channels. The appointment of a receiver to rehabilitate or liquidate or take other adverse regulatory actions against a significant competitor could also negatively impact our businesses if such actions were to impact consumer confidence in industry products and services.

Our reliance on key distribution relationships could cause us to lose significant sales if one or more of those relationships terminate or are reduced.

We distribute our products through a wide variety of distribution methods, including through relationships with key distribution partners (including lender customers of our mortgage insurance businesses). These distribution partners are an integral part of our business model. We are at risk that key distribution partners may merge, change their distribution model affecting how our products are sold, or terminate their distribution contracts or relationships with us. In addition, timing of key distributor adoption of our new product offerings may impact sales of those products. Some distributors have, and in the future others may, elect to terminate or

reduce their distribution relationships with us for a variety of reasons, including as a result of our recent financial challenges (including adverse ratings actions). And in the future, other distributors may terminate or reduce their relationships with us as a result of, among other things, these challenges as well as future adverse developments in our business or adverse rating agency actions or concerns about market-related risks, commission levels or the breadth of our product offerings. As discussed in “Part I—Item 1—Business—International Mortgage Insurance,” our mortgage insurance businesses in Canada and Australia are concentrated in a small number of key distribution partners, which increases our risks and exposure in the event one or more of these partners terminate or reduce their relationship with us. Any termination, reduction or material change in relationship with a key distribution partner could have a material adverse effect on our future sales for one or more products.

Our insurance businesses are extensively regulated and changes in regulation may reduce our profitability and limit our growth.

Our insurance operations are subject to a wide variety of laws and regulations and are extensively regulated. State insurance laws regulate most aspects of our U.S. insurance businesses, and our insurance subsidiaries are regulated by the insurance departments of the states in which they are domiciled and licensed. Our international operations are principally regulated by insurance regulatory authorities in the jurisdictions in which they are domiciled. Failure to comply with applicable regulations or to obtain or maintain appropriate authorizations or exemptions under any applicable laws could result in restrictions on our ability to do business or engage in activities regulated in one or more jurisdictions in which we operate and could subject us to fines and other sanctions which could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, the nature and extent of regulation of our activities in applicable jurisdictions could materially change causing a material adverse effect on our business.

Insurance regulatory authorities in the United States and internationally have broad administrative powers including, but not limited to:

•

licensing companies and agents to transact business;

•

calculating the value of assets and determining the eligibility of assets to determine compliance with statutory requirements;

•

mandating certain insurance benefits;

•

regulating certain premium rates;

•

reviewing and approving policy forms;

•

regulating unfair trade and claims practices, including through the imposition of restrictions on marketing and sales practices, distribution arrangements and payment of inducements;

•

establishing and revising statutory capital and reserve requirements and solvency standards;

•

fixing maximum interest rates on insurance policy loans and minimum rates for guaranteed crediting rates on life insurance policies and annuity contracts;

•

approving future rate increases;

•

approving changes in control of insurance companies;

•

restricting the payment of dividends and other transactions between affiliates; and

•

regulating the types, amounts and valuation of investments.

State insurance regulators and the NAIC regularly re-examine existing laws and regulations, specifically focusing on modifications to statutory accounting principles, interpretations of existing laws and the development of new laws and regulations applicable to insurance companies and their products. Any proposed or future legislation or NAIC initiatives, if adopted, may be more restrictive on our ability to conduct business than current

regulatory requirements or may result in higher costs or increased statutory capital and reserve requirements. Further, because laws and regulations can be complex and sometimes inexact, there is also a risk that any particular regulator’s or enforcement authority’s interpretation of a legal, accounting or reserving issue may change over time to our detriment, or expose us to different or additional regulatory risks. The application of these regulations and guidelines by insurers involves interpretations and judgments that may differ from those of state insurance departments. We cannot provide assurance that such differences of opinion will not result in regulatory, tax or other challenges to the actions we have taken to date. The result of those potential challenges could require us to increase levels of statutory capital and reserves or incur higher operating costs and/or have implications on certain tax positions.

In addition, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the regulatory body of the FHLBs, began exploring changes to federal regulations in December 2010, augmented by an additional proposed advisory bulletin in 2012 on FHLB lending to insurers. These changes, if enacted, could impact our ability to effectively utilize FHLB products and services. FHLB membership provides a low-cost alternative funding source for our businesses. Changes in these laws and regulations, or in interpretations thereof in the United States, can be made for the benefit of the consumer, or for other reasons, at the expense of the insurer and thus could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Regulators in the United States and internationally have developed criteria under which they are subjecting non-bank financial companies, including insurance companies, that are deemed systemically important to higher regulatory capital requirements and stricter prudential standards. Although neither we nor any of our subsidiaries have been designated systemically important, we cannot predict whether we or any of our subsidiaries will be deemed systemically important in the future or how such a designation would impact our business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

Litigation and regulatory investigations or other actions are common in the insurance business and may result in financial losses and harm our reputation.

We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations or other actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including class action lawsuits. Our pending legal and regulatory actions include proceedings specific to us and others generally applicable to business practices in the industries in which we operate.

In our insurance operations, we are, have been, or may become subject to class actions and individual suits alleging, among other things, issues relating to sales or underwriting practices, increases to in-force long-term care insurance premiums, payment of contingent or other sales commissions, claims payments and procedures, cancellation or rescission of coverage, product design, product disclosure, administration, additional premium charges for premiums paid on a periodic basis, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees on products, recommending unsuitable products to customers, our pricing structures and business practices in our mortgage insurance businesses, such as captive reinsurance arrangements with lenders and contract underwriting services, violations of RESPA or related state anti-inducement laws and breaching fiduciary or other duties to customers. In our investment-related operations, we are subject to litigation involving commercial disputes with counterparties. In addition, we are also subject to various regulatory inquiries, such as information requests, subpoenas, books and record examinations and market conduct and financial examinations, from state, federal and international regulators and other authorities. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us, as well as regulators, may seek very large or indeterminate amounts, which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time.

We are also subject to litigation arising out of our general business activities such as our contractual and employment relationships and we are currently subject to two shareholder putative class action lawsuits alleging securities law violations.

A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action (including uncertainty about the outcome of pending legal and regulatory investigations and actions) against us could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer significant reputational harm and incur significant legal expenses, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. At this time, it is not feasible to predict, nor determine, the ultimate outcomes of any pending investigations and legal proceedings, nor to provide reasonable ranges of possible losses other than those that have been disclosed.

For a further discussion of certain current investigations and proceedings in which we are involved, see “Item 3—Legal Proceedings.” We cannot assure you that these investigations and proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. It is also possible that we could become subject to further investigations and have lawsuits filed or enforcement actions initiated against us. In addition, increased regulatory scrutiny and any resulting investigations or legal proceedings could result in new legal precedents and industry-wide regulations or practices that could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting may adversely impact our company.

As discussed in “Part II—Item 9A—Controls and Procedures,” we have concluded that we did not have adequate controls designed and in place to ensure that we correctly implemented changes made to one of our methodologies as part of our comprehensive long-term care insurance claim reserves review completed in the third quarter of 2014. As a result, we failed to identify a $44 million after-tax calculation error. Although this control deficiency did not result in a material misstatement in the consolidated financial statements, we have concluded a material weakness exists in the controls over the implementation of our long-term care insurance claim reserves assumption and methodology changes because such a misstatement could have occurred. We are currently working to remediate the material weakness.

We currently are targeting to complete the implementation of the control enhancements during 2015. We will test the ongoing operating effectiveness of the new controls subsequent to implementation, and consider the material weakness remediated after the applicable remedial controls operate effectively for a sufficient period of time. We cannot be sure when we will successfully remediate the material weakness or whether compensating controls will be effective before then in preventing or detecting material errors. The remediation may require substantial time and resources to successfully implement. Moreover, this material weakness and the financial statement errors we have had in the past or may have in the future could cause investors, creditors, distributors, customers, rating agencies, regulators and others to lose confidence in the effectiveness of our internal controls and the accuracy of our financial statements and other information, all of which could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our computer systems may fail or be compromised, and unanticipated problems could materially adversely impact our disaster recovery systems and business continuity plans, which could damage our reputation, impair our ability to conduct business effectively and materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our business is highly dependent upon the effective operation of our computer systems. We also have arrangements in place with our partners and other third-party service providers through which we share and receive information. We rely on these systems throughout our business for a variety of functions, including processing claims and applications, providing information to customers and distributors, performing actuarial analyses and maintaining financial records. Despite the implementation of security and back-up measures, our computer systems and those of our partners and third-party service providers may be vulnerable to physical or electronic intrusions, computer viruses or other attacks, programming errors and similar disruptive problems. The failure of these systems for any reason could cause significant interruptions to our operations, which could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We retain confidential information in our computer systems, and we rely on commercial technologies to maintain the security of those systems, including computers or mobile devices. Anyone who is able to circumvent our security measures and penetrate our computer systems or misuse authorized access could access, view, misappropriate, alter, or delete any information in the systems, including personally identifiable information, personal health information and proprietary business information. Our employees, distribution partners and other vendors may use portable computers or mobile devices which may contain similar information to that in our computer systems, and these devices have been and can be lost, stolen or damaged, and therefore subject to the same risks as our other computer systems. In addition, an increasing number of states and foreign countries require that affected parties be notified or other actions be taken (which could involve significant costs to us) if a security breach results in the inappropriate disclosure of personally identifiable information. Although we have experienced occasional, actual or attempted breaches of our cybersecurity, none of these breaches has had a material effect on our business, operations or reputation. Any compromise of the security of our computer systems that results in inappropriate disclosure of personally identifiable customer information could damage our reputation in the marketplace, deter people from purchasing our products, subject us to significant civil and criminal liability and require us to incur significant technical, legal and other expenses.

In addition, unanticipated problems with, or failures of, our disaster recovery systems and business continuity plans could have a material adverse impact on our ability to conduct business and on our results of operations and financial condition, particularly if those problems affect our information technology systems and destroy, lose or otherwise compromise valuable data. In addition, in the event that a significant number of our employees were unavailable in the event of a disaster, our ability to effectively conduct business could be severely compromised. The failure of our disaster recovery systems and business continuity plans could adversely impact our profitability and our business.

The occurrence of natural or man-made disasters or a pandemic could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We are exposed to various risks arising out of natural disasters, including earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and tornadoes, and man-made disasters, including acts of terrorism and military actions and pandemics. For example, a natural or man-made disaster or a pandemic could disrupt our computer systems and our ability to conduct or process business, as well as lead to unexpected changes in persistency rates as policyholders and contractholders who are affected by the disaster may be unable to meet their contractual obligations, such as payment of premiums on our insurance policies, deposits into our investment products, and mortgage payments on loans insured by our mortgage insurance policies. They could also significantly increase our mortality and morbidity experience above the assumptions we used in pricing our insurance and investment products. The continued threat of terrorism and ongoing military actions may cause significant volatility in global financial markets, and a natural or man-made disaster or a pandemic could trigger an economic downturn in the areas directly or indirectly affected by the disaster. These consequences could, among other things, result in a decline in business and increased claims from those areas, as well as an adverse effect on home prices in those areas, which could result in increased loss experience in our mortgage insurance businesses. Disasters or a pandemic also could disrupt public and private infrastructure, including communications and financial services, which could disrupt our normal business operations.

A natural or man-made disaster or a pandemic could also disrupt the operations of our counterparties or result in increased prices for the products and services they provide to us. For example, a natural or man-made disaster or a pandemic could lead to increased reinsurance prices or reduced availability of reinsurance and potentially cause us to retain more risk than we otherwise would retain if we were able to obtain reinsurance at lower prices. In addition, a disaster or a pandemic could adversely affect the value of the assets in our investment portfolio if it affects companies’ ability to pay principal or interest on their securities or the value of the underlying collateral of structured securities or the value of the underlying collateral of structured securities.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act subjects us to additional federal regulation, and we cannot predict the effect of such regulation on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted and signed into law. The Dodd-Frank Act made extensive changes to the laws regulating financial services firms and requires various federal agencies to adopt a broad range of new implementing rules and regulations, many of which have taken effect. Federal agencies were given significant discretion in drafting the rules and regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act. Although many of those regulations have now been adopted, many of the details and much of the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act may not be known for some time. In addition, this legislation mandated multiple studies and reports for Congress, which could result in additional legislative or regulatory action.

Among other provisions, the Dodd-Frank Act provides for a new framework of regulation of OTC derivatives markets that requires us to clear certain types of transactions through clearing organizations. We are subject to the clearing requirement that requires us to post highly liquid securities as initial margin and have cash available to meet daily variation margin demands for most of our new interest rate derivative transactions. The need for initial and variation margin requires us to hold additional liquid, lower-yielding securities as well as cash in our investment portfolio. In addition, over time, we will experience additional collateral requirements for derivative transactions that are not required to be cleared. Certain of our derivative transactions are required to be traded on swap execution facilities, regulated platforms for swap trading. Our derivatives activity is subject to greater transparency due to heightened reporting requirements. As a result of all of these changes which could make trading derivatives more expensive or difficult to execute, we may have to alter or limit the way we use derivatives in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires many of our swap trading counterparties to register as OTC derivatives dealers. OTC derivatives dealers will be subject to provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act regarding minimum capital and margin posting and collection requirements. OTC derivatives dealers are or will be subject to new business conduct standards, disclosure requirements, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, transparency requirements, position limits, limitations on conflicts of interest, and other regulatory burdens (some of which are already in effect). These requirements may increase the overall costs for OTC derivative dealers, which are likely to be passed along, at least partially, to market participants such as us in the form of higher fees or less advantageous dealer marks. These additional obligations on dealers may make it more difficult and costly for us to enter into certain transactions. They may also render certain of our investment strategies impossible or so costly that they will no longer be cost-effective to implement.

The applicability of many of these regulations to us will depend to a large extent on whether the FSOC determines that we are systemically significant, in which case we would become subject to supervision by the Federal Reserve Board. FSOC has adopted final rules for evaluating whether a non-bank financial company should be designated as systemically significant. To date, the FSOC has not identified us as systemically significant. Since we are not affiliated with an insured depository institution, such supervision would probably have its greatest effect on requirements relating to capital, liquidity, stress testing, limits on counterparty credit exposure, compliance and governance, early remediation in the event of financial weakness and other prudential matters. Systemically significant companies are also required to prepare resolution plans, so-called “living wills,” that set out how they could most efficiently be liquidated if they endangered the U.S. financial system or the broader economy. Insurance companies that are found to be systemically significant are permitted, in some circumstances, to submit abbreviated versions of such plans.

The Dodd-Frank Act establishes an FIO within the Department of the Treasury to perform various functions with respect to insurance, including serving as a non-voting member of the FSOC and making recommendations to the FSOC regarding insurers that may be designated for more stringent oversight by the FSOC. We have not been designated to receive oversight by the FSOC, but there can be no assurances that it will not happen in the future.

We cannot predict the requirements that will be imposed under all the regulations adopted under the Dodd-Frank Act, the effect regulations will have on financial markets generally, or on our businesses specifically (directly or indirectly), the additional costs associated with compliance with such regulations, or any changes to our operations that may be necessary to comply with the Dodd-Frank Act and the regulations thereunder, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

Changes in accounting and reporting standards issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board or other standard-setting bodies and insurance regulators could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our financial statements are subject to the application of U.S. GAAP, which is periodically revised and/or expanded. Accordingly, from time to time, we are required to adopt new or revised accounting standards issued by recognized authoritative bodies, including the Financial Accounting Standards Board. It is possible that future accounting and reporting standards we are required to adopt could change the current accounting treatment that we apply to our financial statements and that such changes could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, the required adoption of future accounting and reporting standards may result in significant costs to implement. For example, current proposals may change the accounting for insurance contracts and financial instruments and could result in increased volatility of net income as well as other comprehensive income. In addition, these proposals could require us to make significant changes to systems and use additional resources, resulting in significant incremental costs to implement the proposals.

We have significant deferred tax assets, and any impairments of or valuation allowances against these deferred tax assets in the future could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We currently utilize significant deferred tax assets to offset income, particularly in our mortgage insurance businesses. The extent to which we can utilize deferred tax assets may be limited for various reasons, including but not limited to changes in tax rules or regulations and if projected future taxable income becomes insufficient to recognize the full benefit of our net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards prior to their expiration. Additionally, our ability to fully use these tax assets will also be adversely affected if we have an “ownership change” within the meaning of Section 382 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. An ownership change is generally defined as a greater than 50% increase in equity ownership by “5% shareholders” (as that term is defined for purposes of Section 382) in any three-year period. Future changes in our stock ownership, depending on the magnitude, including the purchase or sale of our common stock by 5% shareholders, and issuances or redemptions of common stock by us, could result in an ownership change that would trigger the imposition of limitations under Section 382. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that in the future we will not experience limitations with respect to recognizing the benefits of our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes for which limitations could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

We may be required to accelerate the amortization of deferred acquisition costs and the present value of future profits, which would increase our expenses and reduce profitability.

DAC represents costs related to the successful acquisition of our insurance policies and investment contracts, which are deferred and amortized over the estimated life of the related insurance policies and investment contracts. These costs primarily consist of commissions in excess of ultimate renewal commissions and underwriting and contract and policy issuance expenses incurred on policies and contracts successfully acquired. Under U.S. GAAP, DAC is subsequently amortized to income, over the lives of the underlying contracts, in relation to the anticipated recognition of premiums or gross profits. In addition, when we acquire a block of insurance policies or investment contracts, we assign a portion of the purchase price to the right to receive future net cash flows from the acquired block of insurance and investment contracts and policies. This intangible asset, called PVFP, represents the actuarially estimated present value of future cash flows from the acquired policies. We amortize the value of this intangible asset in a manner similar to the amortization of DAC.

Our amortization of DAC and PVFP generally depends upon, among other items, anticipated profits from investments, surrender and other policy and contract charges, mortality, morbidity and maintenance expense margins. Unfavorable experience with regard to expected expenses, investment returns, mortality, morbidity, withdrawals or lapses may cause us to increase the amortization of DAC or PVFP, or both, or to record a charge to increase benefit reserves, and such increases could be material.

We regularly review DAC and PVFP to determine if they are recoverable from future income. If these costs are not recoverable, they are charged as expenses in the financial period in which we make this determination. For example, if we determine that we are unable to recover DAC from profits over the life of a block of insurance policies or annuity contracts, or if withdrawals or surrender charges associated with early withdrawals do not fully offset the unamortized acquisition costs related to those policies or annuities, we would be required to recognize the additional DAC amortization as an expense in the current period. Equity market volatility could result in losses in our variable annuity products and associated hedging program which could challenge our ability to recover DAC on these products and could lead to further write-offs of DAC.

We have significant international operations that could be adversely affected by changes in political or economic stability or government policies where we operate.

We have a presence in more than 25 countries around the world. Global economic and regulatory developments could affect our business in many ways. For example, our operations are subject to local laws and regulations, which in many ways are similar to the state laws and regulations outlined above. Many of our international customers and independent sales intermediaries also operate in regulated environments. Changes in the regulations that affect their operations also may affect our business relationships with them and their ability to purchase or to distribute our products. These changes could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, compliance with applicable laws and regulations is time consuming and personnel-intensive, and changes in these laws and regulations may increase materially our direct and indirect compliance and other expenses of doing business, thus having a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Local, regional and global economic conditions, including changes in housing markets, employment levels, government benefit levels, credit markets, trade levels, inflation, recession and currency fluctuations, as discussed above, also could have a material adverse effect on our international businesses. Political changes, some of which may be disruptive, can also interfere with our customers and all of our activities in a particular location. Attempts to mitigate these risks can be costly and are not always successful.

Many European countries which use the euro as a common currency have experienced levels of economic stress. Failure of European officials to resolve the current euro area debt situation may result in significant financial market volatility and instability and negatively influence our business within European countries, as well as other countries around the world.

Our international businesses and operations are subject to the tax laws and regulations, and value added tax and other indirect taxes, in the countries in which they are organized and in which they operate. Foreign governments from time to time consider legislation and regulations that could increase the amount of taxes that we pay or impact the sales of our products. An increase to tax rates in the countries in which we operate could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates and international securities markets could negatively affect our profitability.

The results of our international operations are denominated in local currencies, and because we derive a significant portion of our income from our international operations, our results of operations could be adversely affected to the extent the dollar value of foreign currencies is reduced due to a strengthening of the U.S. dollar.

We generally invest cash generated by our international operations in securities denominated in local currencies. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, approximately 18% and 20%, respectively, of our invested assets were held by our international operations and were invested primarily in non-U.S.-denominated securities. Although investing in securities denominated in local currencies limits the effect of currency exchange rate fluctuation on local operating results, we remain exposed to the impact of fluctuations in exchange rates as we translate the operating results of our international operations into our consolidated financial statements. We currently do not hedge this exposure, other than for dividend and other expected cash payments from our Canadian and Australian mortgage insurance businesses, and, as a result, period-to-period comparability of our results of operations is affected by fluctuations in exchange rates. Our investments in non-U.S.-denominated securities are subject to fluctuations in non-U.S. securities and currency markets, and those markets can be volatile. Non-U.S. currency fluctuations also affect the value of any dividends paid by our non-U.S. subsidiaries to their parent companies in the United States.

Risks Relating Primarily to Our Long-Term Care Insurance, Life Insurance and Annuities Businesses

We may not be able to increase premiums or reduce benefits on our in-force long-term care insurance policies by enough or quickly enough and the rate actions or reduced benefits currently being implemented and any future rate actions may adversely affect demand for our long-term care insurance products, our reputation in the market, our results of operations and our financial condition.

The success of our strategy for our long-term care insurance business is based on our ability to obtain significant price increases or benefit reductions, as warranted and actuarially justified based on our experience, on our in-force block of long-term care insurance policies and price our new policies appropriately (at significantly higher prices than has historically been the case). The adequacy of our current long-term care insurance reserves also depends significantly on this assumption and our ability to successfully execute our in-force management plan through increased premiums or reduced benefits as anticipated. Although the terms of all of our long-term care insurance policies permit us to increase premiums during the premium-paying period, these increases generally require regulatory approval, which often takes a long time to obtain and may not be obtained in all relevant jurisdictions or for the full amounts requested. In addition, some states are considering adopting long-term care insurance rate increase legislation that would further limit increases in long-term care insurance premium rates beyond the rate stability legislation previously adopted in certain states, which would adversely impact our ability to achieve anticipated rate increases. Rate increases by us or our competitors could also adversely affect our reputation in the markets in which we operate, adversely impact our ability to continue to market and sell new long-term care insurance products, make it more difficult for us to obtain future rate increases and adversely impact our ability to retain existing policyholders and agents. Policyholders may be unwilling or unable to pay the increased premiums we will seek to charge. We cannot predict how our policyholders (or potential future policyholders), agents, competitors and regulators may react to any rate increases, nor can we predict if regulators will approve regulated rate increases. If we are not able to increase rates or achieve associated benefit reductions for our in-force long-term care insurance policies to the extent we anticipate, we may be required to establish additional reserves and make greater payments under our long-term care insurance policies than we currently project. We may also be forced to stop selling our long-term care insurance products in markets where we cannot achieve satisfactory rate increases, which will cause a further decrease in our sales. For discussion of risks relating to our reserves, see “—If our reserves for future policy claims are inadequate as a result of deviations from our estimates and actuarial assumptions or other reasons, we may be required to increase our reserves, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.”

In addition, there can be no assurance that the premium levels of our current and future products will be well received by the market, and we may suffer from a decreased demand for our long-term care insurance products. If we are unable to sell our long-term care insurance products at such premium levels, we may not be able to sell them profitably or at all, and our results of operations and financial condition may be materially adversely affected.

If demand fails to increase for our long-term care insurance, life insurance or fixed annuity products, our business and our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

A large percentage of our revenue is derived from sales of long-term care insurance, life insurance and fixed annuity products. In recent years, industry sales of these products have varied; in some years, sales have significantly declined while in other years sales have grown moderately. Several factors can affect demand for these products, including changes in market and economic conditions, risk tolerance of insurers and customers and legislative or regulatory changes. In the past, decisions by insurers to cease offering these products, to raise prices on in-force policies or new policies and/or to introduce new products with higher prices have negatively impacted sales for these products. These actions resulted in decreased purchases of some of these products and have caused some distributors to reduce their sales focus on some of these products. Our success in these businesses depends on our ability to introduce and market products and services that are financially attractive and address our customers’ changing demands. If the market for life insurance, long-term care insurance and fixed annuity products remains flat or does not improve or if we are unable to compete effectively in that market with our product offerings, our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. For the impact on sales of these products from recent rating changes, see “—Recent adverse rating agency actions have resulted in a loss of business and adversely affected our results of operations, financial condition and business and future adverse rating actions could have a further and more significant adverse impact on us.”

If we have projected profits in earlier years followed by projected losses in later years (as is currently the case with our long-term care insurance business), we will be required to increase our reserve liabilities over time to offset the projected future losses, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We calculate and maintain reserves for estimated future payments of claims to our policyholders and contractholders in accordance with U.S. GAAP and industry accounting practices. When we conclude that our reserves are insufficient by line of business to cover actual or expected policy and contract benefits and claim payments as a result of changes in experience, assumptions or otherwise, we are required to increase our reserves and incur charges in the period in which we make the determination. We are also required to accrue additional reserves over time when the overall reserve is adequate by line of business, but profits are projected in earlier years followed by losses projected in later years. When this pattern of profits followed by losses exists, and we determine that an additional reserve liability is required, we increase reserves in the years we expect to be profitable by the amounts necessary to offset losses projected in later years.

In our long-term care insurance products, projected profits followed by projected losses are anticipated to occur because U.S. GAAP requires that original assumptions be used in determining reserves for future policy claims unless and until a premium deficiency exists. Our existing locked-in reserve assumptions do not include assumptions for premium rate increases, which if included in reserves, could reduce or eliminate future projected losses. The amount of future increases in reserves may be significant and this could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. For example, the results of our loss recognition testing as of December 31, 2014 on our long-term care insurance products, excluding the acquired block, indicated that our DAC was recoverable and reserves were sufficient. However, the loss recognition testing for our long-term care insurance products, excluding the acquired block, indicated we had projected profits in earlier years benefitting from our in-force rate actions followed by projected losses in the later years given our updated view on claims severity. As a result of this pattern of projected profits followed by projected losses, we are required to accrue additional future policy benefit reserves in the profitable years, currently expected to be through approximately 2030 (before accruing for the additional liability), by the amounts necessary to offset losses in later years. Given there were no profits in our long-term care insurance business in 2014, no accrual was recorded.

For additional information, see “Part II—Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Estimates—Insurance liabilities and reserves.”

We may face losses if there are deviations from our assumptions regarding the future persistency of our insurance policies and annuity contracts.

The prices and expected future profitability of our insurance and deferred annuity products are based in part upon expected patterns of premiums, expenses and benefits, using a number of assumptions, including those related to persistency, which is the probability that a policy or contract will remain in-force from one period to the next. The effect of persistency on profitability varies for different products. For most of our life insurance and deferred annuity products, actual persistency that is lower than our persistency assumptions could have an adverse impact on profitability, primarily because we would be required to accelerate the amortization of expenses we deferred in connection with the acquisition of the policy or contract. For our deferred annuities with GMWBs and guaranteed annuitization benefits, actual persistency that is higher than our persistency assumptions could have an adverse impact on profitability because we could be required to make withdrawal or annuitization payments for a longer period of time than the account value would support. For our universal life insurance policies, increased persistency that is the result of the sale of policies by the insured to third parties that continue to make premium payments on policies that would otherwise have lapsed, also known as life settlements, could have an adverse impact on profitability because of the higher claims rate associated with settled policies.

For our long-term care insurance and some other health insurance policies, actual persistency in later policy durations that is higher than our persistency assumptions could have a negative impact on profitability. If these policies remain in-force longer than we assumed, then we could be required to make greater benefit payments than we had anticipated when we priced these products. This risk is particularly significant in our long-term care insurance business because we do not have the experience history that we have in many of our other businesses. As a result, our ability to predict persistency and resulting benefit experience for long-term care insurance is more limited than for many other products. Some of our long-term care insurance policies have experienced higher persistency than we had assumed, which has resulted in higher claims and an adverse effect on the profitability of that business.

Because our assumptions regarding persistency experience are inherently uncertain, reserves for future policy benefits and claims may prove to be inadequate if actual persistency experience is different from those assumptions. Although some of our products permit us to increase premiums during the life of the policy or contract, we cannot guarantee that these increases would be sufficient to maintain profitability or that such increases would be approved by regulators or approved in a timely manner. Moreover, many of our products either do not permit us to increase premiums or limit those increases during the life of the policy or contract. Significant deviations in experience from pricing expectations regarding persistency could have an adverse effect on the profitability of our products.

Medical advances, such as genetic research and diagnostic imaging, and related legislation could materially adversely affect the financial performance of our life insurance, long-term care insurance and annuity businesses.

Genetic testing research and discovery is advancing at a rapid pace. Though some of this research is focused on identifying the genes associated with rare diseases, much of the research is focused on identifying the genes associated with an increased risk of various diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. Diagnostic testing utilizing various blood panels or imaging techniques may allow clinicians to detect similar diseases during an earlier phase. We believe that if an individual learns through such testing that they are predisposed to a condition that may reduce their life expectancy or increase their chances of requiring long-term care, they potentially will be more likely to purchase our life and long-term care insurance policies or not permit their existing policy to lapse. In contrast, if an individual learns that they lack the genetic predisposition to develop the conditions that reduce longevity or require long-term care, they potentially will be less likely to purchase our life and long-term care insurance products, but more likely to purchase certain annuity products and permit their life and long-term care insurance policies to lapse.

Being able to access and use the medical information (including the results of genetic and diagnostic testing) known to our prospective policyholders is important to ensure that an underwriting risk assessment matches the anticipated risk priced into our life and long-term care insurance products, as well as our annuity products. Currently, there are some state level restrictions related to an insurer’s access and use of genetic information, and periodically new genetic testing legislation is being introduced. However, further restrictions on the access and use of such medical information could create a mismatch between an assessed risk and the product pricing. Such a mismatch has the potential to increase product pricing resulting in a decrease in sales and purchasers at increased risk becoming the more likely buyer. The net result of this could cause a deterioration in the risk profile of our portfolio which could lead to payments to our policyholders and contractholders that are materially higher than anticipated.

In addition to earlier diagnosis or knowledge of disease risk, medical advances may also lead to newer forms of preventive care which could improve an individual’s overall health and longevity. If this were to occur, the duration of payments made by us under certain forms of our annuity contracts likely would increase thereby reducing our profitability on those products.

We may not be able to continue to mitigate the impact of Regulations XXX or AXXX and, therefore, we may incur higher operating costs that could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We have increased term and universal life insurance statutory reserves in response to Regulations XXX and AXXX and have taken steps to mitigate the impact these regulations have had on our business, including increasing premium rates and implementing reserve funding structures, as well as changing our product offerings. We cannot provide assurance that we will be able to continue to implement actions to mitigate further impacts of Regulations XXX or AXXX on our term and universal life insurance products. Market conditions and regulatory constraints have, at times, limited the capacity of, and impacted pricing for, these reserve funding structures. If capacity were to be limited for a prolonged period of time, our ability to obtain new funding for these structures could be hindered. Additionally, we cannot be sure that there will not be regulatory, tax or other challenges to the actions we have taken to date, which could require us to increase statutory reserves or incur higher operating and/or tax costs.

One way that we and other insurance companies have mitigated the impact of these regulations is through captive reinsurance companies and/or special purpose vehicles. During 2014, the NAIC approved a new regulatory framework applicable to the use of captive insurers in connection with Regulation XXX and Regulation AXXX transactions, and implemented the framework through AG 48, which requires the ceding company’s actuary who opines on the insurer’s reserves to issue a qualified opinion if the framework is not followed. The NAIC is also currently developing a model regulation to be implemented by states that is expected to contain the same substantive provisions as the provisions of the adopted AG 48. Further implementation of the framework remains with respect to risk-based capital calculations, financial reporting by captives and other issues. Resolution of these issues, as well as potential additional requirements that could be imposed by individual regulators, could make it more difficult and/or expensive for us to mitigate the impact of Regulations XXX and AXXX, and this in turn, could affect our product prices and offerings.

If we were to discontinue our use of captive life reinsurance subsidiaries to finance statutory reserves in response to regulatory changes on a prospective basis, the reasonably likely impact would be increased costs related to alternative financing, such as third-party reinsurance, and potential reductions in or discontinuance of new term life insurance sales, all of which would adversely impact our consolidated results of operations and financial condition. In addition, we cannot be certain that affordable alternative financing would be available.

Risks Relating Primarily to Our Mortgage Insurance Businesses

A deterioration in economic conditions or a decline in home prices may adversely affect our loss experience in mortgage insurance.

Losses in our mortgage insurance businesses generally result from events, such as reduction of income, unemployment, underemployment, divorce, illness, inability to manage credit, interest rate levels and home values that reduce a borrower’s ability to continue to make mortgage payments and disproportionate reliance of a local economy on a business sector that experiences a decline. The amount of the loss we suffer, if any, depends in part on whether the home of a borrower who defaults on a mortgage can be sold for an amount that will cover unpaid principal and interest and the expenses of the sale. A deterioration in economic conditions generally increases the likelihood that borrowers will not have sufficient income to pay their mortgages and can also adversely affect housing values, which increases our risk of loss. A decline in home prices, whether or not in conjunction with deteriorating economic conditions, may also increase our risk of loss.

In the past, the United States in particular experienced an economic slowdown and saw a pronounced weakness in its housing markets, as well as declines in home prices. This slowdown and the resulting impact on the housing markets have been reflected in our elevated level of delinquencies. In addition, there has been a lag in the rate at which delinquent loans are going to foreclosure due to various local and lender foreclosure moratoria as well as servicer and court-related backlog issues. As these loans eventually go to foreclosure, our paid claims will increase. Ongoing delays in foreclosure processes could cause our losses to increase as expenses accrue for longer periods or if the value of foreclosed homes further decline during such delays. If we experience an increase in or the cost of delinquencies that are higher than expected, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Premiums for the significant portion of our international mortgage insurance risk in-force with high loan-to-value ratios may not be sufficient to compensate us for the greater risks associated with those policies.

A significant portion of our international mortgage insurance risk in-force consists of mortgage loans with high loan-to-value ratios, which typically have claim incidence rates substantially higher than mortgage loans with lower loan-to-value ratios. In Canada and Australia, the risks of having a portfolio with a significant portion of high loan-to-value mortgages are greater than in the United States and Europe because we generally agree to cover 100% of the losses associated with mortgage defaults in those markets, compared to percentages in the United States and Europe that typically range between 10% and 35% of the loan amount. Although mortgage insurance premiums for higher loan-to-value ratio loans generally are higher than for loans with lower loan-to-value ratios, the difference in premium rates may not be sufficient to compensate us for the greater risks associated with mortgage loans bearing higher loan-to-value ratios.

Our international mortgage insurance business is subject to substantial competition from government-owned and government-sponsored enterprises, and this may put us at a competitive disadvantage on pricing and other terms and conditions.

Like our U.S. mortgage insurance business, our international mortgage insurance business competes with government-owned and government-sponsored enterprises. In Canada, we compete with CMHC, a Crown corporation owned by the Canadian government. In Europe, these enterprises include public mortgage guarantee facilities in a number of countries. Like government-owned and government-sponsored enterprises in the United States, these competitors may establish pricing terms and business practices that may be influenced by motives such as advancing social housing policy or stabilizing the mortgage lending industry, which may not be consistent with maximizing return on capital or other profitability measures. In the event that a government-owned or sponsored entity in one of our markets determines to reduce prices significantly or alter the terms and conditions of its mortgage insurance or other credit enhancement products in furtherance of social or other goals rather than a profit motive, we may be unable to compete in that market effectively, which could have a material

adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. See “—We compete with government-owned and government-sponsored enterprises in our U.S. mortgage insurance business, and this may put us at a competitive disadvantage on pricing and other terms and conditions.”

In Canada, CMHC is a sovereign entity that provides mortgage lenders a lower capital charge and a 100% government guarantee as compared to loans covered by our policy which benefit from a 90% government guarantee. CMHC also operates the Canadian Mortgage Bond Program, which provides lenders the ability to efficiently guaranty and securitize their mortgage loan portfolios. If we are unable to effectively distinguish ourselves competitively with our Canadian mortgage lender customers, under current market conditions or in the future, we may be unable to compete effectively with CMHC as a result of the more favorable capital relief it can provide or the other products and incentives that it offers to lenders.

Recent conditions in the international financial markets could lead other countries to nationalize our competitors or establish competing governmental agencies, which would further limit our competitive position in international markets and, therefore, materially affect our results of operations.

Changes in regulations could affect our international operations significantly and could reduce the demand for mortgage insurance.

In addition to the general regulatory risks that are described under “—Our insurance businesses are extensively regulated and changes in regulation may reduce our profitability and limit our growth,” we are also affected by various additional regulations relating particularly to our international mortgage insurance operations.

All financial institutions that are federally regulated by OSFI are required to purchase mortgage insurance whenever the amount of a mortgage loan exceeds 80% of the value of the collateral property at the time the loan is made. From time to time, the Canadian government reviews the federal financial services regulatory framework and has in the past examined whether to remove, in whole or in part, the requirement for mortgage insurance on such high loan-to-value mortgages. High loan-to-value mortgage loans constitute a significant part of our portfolio of insured mortgages in Canada, and the removal, in whole or in part, of the regulatory requirement for mortgage insurance for such loans could result in a reduction in the amount of new insurance written by us in Canada in future years. In addition, any increase in the threshold loan-to-value ratio above which mortgage insurance is required could also result in a reduction in the amount of new insurance written by us in Canada in future years. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Over the past several years, the Canadian government implemented a series of revisions to the rules for government guaranteed mortgages aimed at strengthening Canada’s housing finance system and ensuring the long-term stability of the Canadian housing market. These revisions were formalized in amendments to the Government Guarantee Agreement and are now reflected in regulations under PRMHIA.

If the Canadian government were to alter its policy in any manner adverse to us, including by managing its aggregate cap of CAD$300.0 billion on the outstanding principal amount of mortgages insured by private mortgage insurance providers in a manner that is detrimental to private mortgage insurance providers, altering the terms of or terminating its guarantee of the policies of private mortgage insurance providers, including those with Genworth Canada, or varying the treatment of private mortgage insurance in the capital rules, Genworth Canada could lose its ability to compete effectively with CMHC and could effectively be unable to write new business as a private mortgage insurer in Canada. This could have an adverse effect on our ability to offer mortgage insurance products in Canada and could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. For further discussion of the Government Guarantee Agreement, refer to “Item 1—Business—International Mortgage Insurance—Canada—Government Guarantee.”

APRA regulates all ADIs in Australia and life, general, and mortgage insurance companies. APRA also determines the minimum regulatory capital requirements for ADIs. APRA’s current regulations provide for

reduced capital requirements for certain ADIs that insure residential mortgages with an “acceptable” mortgage insurer (which include our Australian mortgage insurance companies) for all non-standard mortgages and for standard mortgages with loan-to-value ratios above 80%. APRA’s regulations currently set out a number of circumstances in which a loan may be considered to be non-standard from an ADI’s perspective. The capital levels for Australian internal ratings-based ADIs are determined by their APRA-approved internal ratings-based models, which may or may not allocate capital credit for LMI. We believe that APRA and the internal ratings-based ADIs have not yet finalized internal models for residential mortgage risk, so we do not believe that the internal ratings-based ADIs currently benefit from an explicit reduction in their capital requirements for mortgages covered by mortgage insurance.

Under rules adopted by APRA effective January 1, 2008, in connection with the revisions to a set of regulatory rules and procedures governing global bank capital standards that were introduced by the Basel Committee of the Bank for International Settlements, ADIs in Australia that are accredited as standardized now receive a reduced capital incentive for using mortgage insurance for high loan-to-value mortgage loans when compared to previous regulations in Australia. ADIs that are considered to be advanced accredited and determine their own capital estimates, are currently working with the mortgage insurers and APRA to determine the appropriate level of incentive mortgage insurance provides for high loan-to-value mortgage loans. The rules also provide that ADIs would be able to acquire mortgage insurance covering less of the exposure to the loan than existing requirements with reduced capital incentives. Accordingly, lenders in Australia may be able to reduce their use of mortgage insurance for high loan-to-value ratio mortgages, or limit their use to the higher risk portions of their portfolios, which may have an adverse effect on our Australian mortgage insurance business.

In December 2010, revisions to a set of regulatory rules and procedures governing global bank capital standards were introduced by the Basel Committee of the Bank for International Settlements to strengthen regulatory capital, liquidity and other requirements for banks, known as Basel III. Although we believe these revisions could support further use of mortgage insurance as a risk and capital management tool in international markets, their adoption by individual countries internationally and in the United States has not concluded and we cannot be sure that this will be the case. Since the Basel framework continues to evolve, we cannot predict the mortgage insurance benefits, if any, that ultimately will be provided to lenders, or how any such benefits may affect the opportunities for the growth of mortgage insurance. If countries implement Basel III in a manner that does not reward lenders for using mortgage insurance as a credit risk mitigant on high loan-to-value mortgage loans, or if lenders conclude that mortgage insurance does not provide sufficient capital incentives, then we may have to revise our product offerings to meet the new requirements and our results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

In December 2013, the Australian government announced that there would be an inquiry into Australia’s financial system. The FSI made a number of recommendations, which were released by the Australian government on December 7, 2014. The FSI has recommended, among other things, that capital levels for internal ratings-based ADIs be raised against residential real estate risks and that lenders mortgage insurance be recognized for bank capital credit purposes where appropriate. The FSI has also recommended narrowing the average risk-weight gap between average risk-weights for the internal ratings-based ADIs and other ADIs to help promote competition. In releasing the FSI’s recommendations, the Australian Treasurer commented that the FSI’s recommendations on bank capital are for APRA and the RBA to be considered as independent regulators. The Australian government will consult with industry before making any recommendations. The Australian government, or the regulators, could change the way that ADIs manage residential real estate risk, including changing the incentives to utilize mortgage insurance, damaging our ability to write new business in Australia. As part of the Australian government’s and regulators potential implementation of the FSI’s recommendations, there may be other legal or regulatory changes that could impact our business negatively, including, but not limited to mandating that mortgage insurance and the underlying mortgages become portable between lenders.

If we are unable to meet the capital requirements mandated by the PMIERs in the form ultimately adopted because the capital requirements are higher than we currently anticipate or otherwise, we may not be eligible to write new insurance on loans sold to or guaranteed by the GSEs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Private mortgage insurers must satisfy the MI Eligibility Standards. Each GSE’s Congressional charter generally prohibits it from purchasing or guaranteeing a mortgage where the loan-to-value ratio exceeds 80% of home value unless the portion of the unpaid principal balance of the mortgage, which is in excess of 80% of the value of the property securing the mortgage, is protected against default by lender recourse, participation or by a qualified insurer. In furtherance of their respective charter requirements, each GSE has adopted MI Eligibility Standards to establish when a mortgage insurer is qualified to issue coverage that will be acceptable to the respective GSE for purchase or guarantee of high loan-to-value mortgages.

The GSEs have the authority to implement new requirements at any time. In June 2013, the FHFA, in its capacity as conservator for the GSEs, announced strategic priorities for the GSEs and indicated that there could be changes to the guidelines contained within the PMIERs. On July 10, 2014, the FHFA released publicly a draft of the revised PMIERs. A 60-day public comment period commenced after publication of the revised draft PMIERs, after which the FHFA and the GSEs continue to review and consider any commentary received before the revised draft PMIERs are finalized. The guidelines contained within the current draft PMIERs contemplate an effective date for compliance 180 days after the final publication date, which is anticipated to be toward the end of the first quarter or beginning of the second quarter of 2015. In addition, the guidelines permit a transition period, subject to GSE approval, of two years from the publication date to meet the revised capital levels.

The amount of additional capital that will be required to meet the Net Asset Requirements, as defined in the revised draft PMIERs, and operate our business is dependent upon, among other things, (i) the extent the final PMIERs as ultimately adopted differ materially from the current draft, including with respect to the amount and timing of additional capital requirements and the amount of capital credit provided to various types of assets; (ii) the way the guidelines are applied and interpreted by the GSEs and FHFA as and after they are implemented; (iii) the future performance of the U.S. housing market; (iv) our generating and having expected U.S. mortgage insurance business earnings, available assets and risk-based required assets (including as they relate to the value of the shares of our Canadian mortgage insurance subsidiary that are owned by our U.S. mortgage insurance business as a result of share price and foreign exchange movements or otherwise), reducing risk in-force and reducing delinquencies as anticipated, and writing anticipated amounts and types of new U.S. mortgage insurance business, and (v) our projected overall financial performance, capital and liquidity levels being as anticipated. As a result, the amount of capital required for our U.S. mortgage insurance business may be higher than currently anticipated, which would increase the associated risks. In the absence of a premium increase, the more capital we hold relative to insured loans, the lower our returns will be. We may be unable to increase premium rates for various reasons, principally due to competition. Our inability, on the other hand, to increase the capital as required in the anticipated timeframes and on the anticipated terms, and to realize the anticipated benefits, could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We expect to meet the increased capital needs of our U.S. mortgage insurance business resulting from the revised draft PMIERs. To address these increased capital needs, we intend to utilize primarily reinsurance (or similar) transactions, together with cash available at the holding company. The implementation of these actions depends on market conditions, third-party approvals or other actions (including approval by regulators), and other factors which are outside of our control and therefore, we cannot be sure we will be able to successfully implement these actions on the anticipated timetable and terms or at all, or achieve the anticipated benefits. Another potential capital source includes, but is not limited to, the issuance of securities by Genworth Financial or Genworth Holdings, which could materially adversely impact our business, shareholders and debtholders.

Although we believe we will be able to increase the capital of our U.S. mortgage insurance business as required so that we will continue to be an eligible mortgage insurer after the final PMIERs are fully effective,

there can be no assurance this will be the case. If we are unable to meet the capital requirements mandated by the final PMIERs upon their becoming fully effective because the capital requirements are higher than we currently anticipate or otherwise, or we determine not to or are unable to utilize additional sources of capital to meet them, we may not be eligible to write new insurance on loans sold to or guaranteed by the GSEs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries are subject to minimum statutory capital requirements and hazardous financial condition standards which, if not met or waived, would result in restrictions or prohibitions on our doing business and could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations.

The elevated levels of paid claims and increases in loss reserves have impacted the statutory capital base of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries. Certain states have insurance laws or regulations which require a mortgage insurer to maintain a minimum amount of statutory capital relative to its level of risk in-force. While formulations of minimum capital vary in certain states, the most common measure applied allows for a maximum permitted risk-to-capital ratio of 25:1. If one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries that is writing business in a particular state fails to maintain that state’s required minimum capital level, we would generally be required to immediately stop writing new business in the state until the insurer re-establishes the required level of capital or receives a waiver of the requirement from the state’s insurance regulator, or until we establish an alternative source of underwriting capacity acceptable to the regulator. GMICO, our primary U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary, previously had exceeded the maximum risk-to-capital ratio of 25:1 established under North Carolina law and enforced by the NCDOI, GMICO’s domestic insurance regulator, but as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, GMICO’s risk-to-capital ratio was approximately 14.3:1 and 19.3:1, respectively. While it is our expectation that our U.S. mortgage insurance business will continue to meet its regulatory capital requirements, should GMICO in the future exceed required risk-to-capital levels, we would seek required regulatory and GSE forbearance and approvals or seek approval for the utilization of alternative insurance vehicles. However, there can be no assurance if, and on what terms, such forbearance and approvals may be obtained.

While we believe GMICO has sufficient claims-paying resources currently to meet its claims obligations on existing insurance in-force, we cannot provide assurance that this would always be the case. Furthermore, our estimates of claims-paying resources and claim obligations are based on various assumptions, which include the timing of the receipt of claims on loans in our delinquency inventory and future claims that we anticipate will ultimately be received, our anticipated loss mitigation activities, premiums, housing prices and unemployment rates. These assumptions are subject to inherent uncertainty and require judgment by management. Current conditions in the domestic economy make the assumptions about when anticipated claims will be received, housing values, and unemployment rates uncertain, such that there is a wide range of reasonably possible outcomes. Also, our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries hold certain affiliate assets including, but not limited to, investments in the common stock of Genworth Canada and the European mortgage insurance subsidiary, as well as in preferred stock of GLIC, all of which are included in our reported statutory capital of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries. The statutory reported value of the Canadian and European mortgage insurance investments is subject to the operating performance of these affiliates as well as changes in foreign exchange rates and mark-to-market valuation on their investment portfolios. These exposures to foreign currency exchange rates are not currently hedged and, hence, the statutory capital of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries and their statutory risk-to-capital ratio may fluctuate because of variances in future reported values. The statutory reporting value of the GLIC preferred stock may be dependent on, among other factors, GLIC’s dividend-paying capacity. In addition, if the NCDOI decreases or no longer permits the admissibility of all or a portion of these affiliate assets, this could have a material adverse impact on the statutory capital and business of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries.

In addition to the minimum statutory capital requirements, our U.S. mortgage insurance business is subject to standards by which insurance regulators in a particular state evaluate the financial condition of the insurer. Typically, regulators are required to evaluate specified criteria to determine whether or not a company may be found to be in hazardous financial condition, in which event restrictions on the business may be imposed. Among

these criteria are formulas used in assessing trends relating to statutory capital. We can provide no assurance as to whether or when a regulator may make a determination of hazardous financial condition for one or more of our mortgage subsidiaries. Such a determination could likely lead to restrictions or prohibitions on our doing business in that state and could have a material adverse impact on results of operations depending on the number of states involved.

During 2012, the NAIC established the MGIWG to determine and make recommendations to the NAIC’s Financial Condition Committee as to what, if any, changes to make to the solvency and other regulations relating to mortgage guaranty insurers. During 2014, the MGIWG published a revised draft of the previously proposed amendments of the MGI Model and solicited comments on these revised proposed amendments. The proposed amendments of the MGI Model relate to, among other things: (i) capital and reserve standards, including increased minimum capital and surplus requirements, mortgage guaranty-specific risk-based capital standards, dividend restrictions and contingency and premium deficiency reserves; (ii) limitations on the geographic concentration of mortgage guaranty risk, including state-based limitations; (iii) restrictions on mortgage insurers’ investments in notes secured by mortgages; (iv) prudent underwriting standards and formal underwriting guidelines to be approved by the insurer’s board; (v) the establishment of formal, internal “Mortgage Guaranty Quality Control Programs” with respect to in-force business; (vi) prohibitions on reinsurance with bank captive reinsurers; and (vii) incorporation of an NAIC “Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Standards Manual.” At this time we cannot predict the outcome of this process, the effect changes, if any, will have on the mortgage guaranty insurance market generally, or on our businesses specifically, the additional costs associated with compliance with any such changes, or any changes to our operations that may be necessary to comply, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, or financial condition. We also cannot predict whether other regulatory initiatives will be adopted or what impact, if any, such initiatives, if adopted as laws, may have on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and a small number of large mortgage lenders exert significant influence over the U.S. mortgage insurance market and changes to the role or structure of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae could have a material adverse impact on our U.S. mortgage insurance business.

Our U.S. mortgage insurance products protect mortgage lenders and investors from default-related losses on residential first mortgage loans made primarily to home buyers with high loan-to-value mortgages, generally, those home buyers who make down payments of less than 20% of their home’s purchase price. We believe the mortgages purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have increased the market size for flow private mortgage insurance during recent years. However, while Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s purchase activity increased in recent years, mortgage insurance penetration did not increase proportionately due to a combination of tighter mortgage insurance guidelines and the impact of GSE loan-level pricing on high loan-to-value loans. Changes by the GSEs in underwriting requirements or pricing terms on mortgage purchases could adversely affect the market size for private mortgage insurance. Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s charters generally prohibit them from purchasing any mortgage with a face amount that exceeds 80% of the home’s value, unless that mortgage is insured by a qualified insurer or the mortgage seller retains at least a 10% participation in the loan or agrees to repurchase the loan in the event of default. As a result, high loan-to-value mortgages purchased by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac generally are insured with private mortgage insurance. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac independently establish eligibility standards for U.S. mortgage insurers. The provisions in Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s charters create much of the demand for private mortgage insurance in the United States. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are also subject to regulatory oversight by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Administration and the FHFA.

Under the GSE-based MI Eligibility standards, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac require maintenance of a financial strength rating by at least two out of three listed rating agencies (S&P, Fitch and Moody’s) of at least “AA-”/“Aa3” (as applicable). These MI Eligibility Standards provide that if these requirements are not met additional limitations or requirements may be imposed in the case of Fannie Mae or will be imposed in the case of Freddie Mac for eligibility to insure loans purchased by the GSEs. In February 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac temporarily suspended their ratings requirements for top tier mortgage insurers, subject to submission of an

acceptable remediation plan. We have submitted remediation plans to both GSEs. The GSEs are reviewing the MI Eligibility Standards and have proposed the revised draft PMIERs as modifications to these standards. In conjunction with that review, and as a condition to us being eligible to continue to insure mortgage loans sold to Fannie Mae prior to the finalization of the PMIERs, Fannie Mae has imposed additional restrictions on us in addition to the existing MI Eligibility Standards. See “Part II—Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Business trends and conditions—Trends and conditions affecting our segments—U.S. Mortgage Insurance” for additional information. Any change in the charter provisions of the GSEs or other statutes or regulations relating to their purchase or guarantee activity, as well as to the mortgage insurer eligibility standards, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Increasing consolidation among mortgage lenders, including the recent mergers in the U.S. banking industry, will continue to result in significant customer concentration for U.S. mortgage insurers. As a result of this significant concentration, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the largest mortgage lenders possess substantial market power, which enables them to influence our business and the mortgage insurance industry in general. Although we actively monitor and develop our relationships with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and our largest mortgage lending customers, a deterioration in any of these relationships, or the loss of business from any of our key customers, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, if the FHLBs reduce their purchases of mortgage loans, purchase uninsured mortgage loans or use other credit-enhancement products, this could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

In September 2008, the FHFA was appointed conservator of the GSEs. The U.S. Congress continues to examine the role of the GSEs in the U.S. housing market, and the Obama administration also continues to evaluate available options regarding the future status of the GSEs. If legislation is enacted that reduces or eliminates the need for the GSEs to obtain credit enhancement on above 80% loan-to-value loans or that otherwise reduces or eliminates the role of the GSEs in single-family housing finance, the demand for private mortgage insurance in the United States could be significantly reduced. In February 2011, the Obama Administration issued a white paper setting forth various proposals to gradually eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Since that date, members of Congress, various housing experts and others within the industry have also published similar proposals. We cannot predict whether or when any proposals will be implemented, and if so in what form, nor can we predict the effect of such a proposal, if so implemented, would have on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Our claims expenses and loss reserves in our U.S. mortgage insurance business could increase if the rate of defaults on mortgages covered by our mortgage insurance increases, and in some cases we expect that paid claims and loss reserves will increase.

During the financial crisis, we experienced increases in paid claims and loss reserves as a result of a significant increase in delinquencies and foreclosures in certain of our books of business, particularly those of 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. This impact was evident in all products across all regions of the country and was particularly evident in our A minus, Alt-A, ARMs and certain 100% loan-to-value products in Florida, California, Arizona and Nevada. In addition, throughout the United States, we experienced an increase in the average loan balance of mortgage loans, including on delinquent loans, as well as a significant decline in home price appreciation in the majority of U.S. markets.

The foregoing factors contributed to an increase in our incurred losses and loss reserves during the financial crisis. While approximately 97% of our primary risk in-force in the United States as of December 31, 2014 is considered prime, based on FICO credit scores of the underlying mortgage loans, continued low or negative home prices, coupled with weakened economic conditions, may cause further increases in our incurred losses and

related loss ratios. Our loss experience may increase as policies continue to age. If the claim frequency on the risk in-force significantly exceeds the claim frequency that was assumed in setting premium rates, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows would be materially adversely affected.

In previous years, we experienced higher levels of paid claims and a decline in the level of loan modifications for borrowers of mortgage loans underlying our delinquency population. If the loan modification trend worsens in 2015 beyond our expectations, we would expect further aging of our delinquent loan inventory, which would pressure our loss reserves. Additionally, if levels of unemployment or underemployment increase in 2015, we would expect further increases in delinquencies and foreclosures to cause upward pressure on our paid claims and loss reserves. With respect to home prices, while housing inventory has demonstrated some improvement in recent years, the inventory of available homes generally remains elevated. Since 2012, the level of existing housing inventory, as measured by the number of months it takes to sell a home, has stabilized at a level of less than six months, which is down over that of prior periods. However, a higher-than-usual level of foreclosure-related properties within the domestic housing market inventory still poses a risk to overall home prices. The inventory of homes on the market may rise substantially as vacant properties migrate their way through the foreclosure process. As these homes eventually make their way through an already strained and unpredictable foreclosure cycle and potentially increase an elevated level of inventory of homes available for sale, we expect that home prices may be pressured downward in certain geographic areas depending upon the level and timing of this process. These conditions could result in a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our premium rates vary with the perceived risk of a claim on the insured loan, which takes into account factors such as the loan-to-value ratio, our long-term historical loss experience, whether the mortgage provides for fixed payments or variable payments, the term of the mortgage, the borrower’s credit history and the level of documentation and verification of the borrower’s income and assets. Our ability to properly determine eligibility and accurate pricing for the mortgage insurance we issue is dependent upon our underwriting and other operational routines. These underwriting routines may vary across the jurisdictions in which we do business. Deficiencies in actual practice in this area could have a material adverse impact on our results. We establish renewal premium rates for the life of a mortgage insurance policy upon issuance, and we cannot cancel the policy or adjust the premiums after the policy is issued. As a result, we cannot offset the impact of unanticipated claims with premium increases on policies in-force, and we cannot refuse to renew mortgage insurance coverage. The premiums we agree to charge upon writing a mortgage insurance policy may not adequately compensate us for the risks and costs associated with the coverage we provide for the entire life of that policy.

Certain types of mortgages have higher probabilities of claims. These include Alt-A loans, loans with an initial Interest Only payment option and other non-traditional loans that we have insured in prior years, including A minus loans and 100% loan-to-value products. Alt-A loans are originated under programs in which there are a reduced level of verification or disclosure of the borrower’s income or assets and a higher historical and expected default rate at origination than standard documentation loans. Standard documentation loans include loans with reduced or different documentation requirements that meet specifications of GSE approved or other lender proprietary underwriting systems and other reduced documentation programs with historical and expected delinquency rates at origination consistent with our standard portfolio. The Interest Only payment option allows the borrower flexibility to pay interest only or pay interest and as much principal as desired, during an initial period of time. A minus loans generally are loans where the borrowers have FICO credit scores between 575 and 660, and where the borrower has a blemished credit history. A material portion of our Alt-A and Interest Only loans was written in 2005 through 2007. At the end of 2007, we began to adopt changes to our underwriting guidelines to substantially eliminate new insurance on these loans. However, the new guidelines only affect business written after those guidelines became effective. Business written before the effectiveness of those guidelines was insured in accordance with the guidelines in effect at time of the commitment, even though that business would not meet the new guidelines. We believe that Alt-A and Interest Only loans written prior to the adoption of the new guidelines may pose a higher risk of claims that would have a material adverse impact on our operating results due to features such as deferred amortization of the loan principal on an Interest Only

product and Interest Only loans that contain an adjustable interest rate feature and may reset to a rate above the existing rate. If defaults on Alt-A or Interest Only or other non-traditional loans are higher than the assumptions we made in pricing our mortgage insurance on those loans, then we would be required to make greater claims payments than we had projected, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We cannot be sure of the extent of benefits we will realize from rescissions, curtailments, loan modifications or other similar programs in our U.S. mortgage insurance business in the future.

As part of our loss mitigation efforts, we routinely investigate insured loans and evaluate the related servicing to ensure compliance with applicable guidelines and to detect possible fraud or misrepresentation. As a result, we have, and may in the future, rescind coverage on loans that do not meet our guidelines or curtail the amount of claims payable for non-compliance. In the past, we recognized significant benefits from taking action on these investigations and evaluations under our master policy. While we believe these actions are valid and expect additional actions based on future investigations and evaluations, we can give no assurance on the extent to which we may continue to see such rescissions or curtailments. In addition, insured lenders may object to our actions and we continue to have discussions with certain of those lenders regarding their objections to our actions that in the aggregate are material. If disputed by the insured and a legal proceeding were instituted, the validity of our actions would be determined by arbitration or judicial proceedings unless otherwise settled. Further, our loss reserving methodology includes estimates of the number of loans in our delinquency inventory that will be rescinded or have their claims curtailed. A variance between ultimate action rates and these estimates could have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. In the near term, sales could be reduced or eliminated as a result of a dispute with one or more lenders and such disputes could have an adverse effect on our long-term relationships with those lenders that are impacted.

The mortgage finance industry (with government support) has adopted various programs to modify loans to make them more affordable to borrowers with the goal of reducing the number of foreclosures. The effect on us of a loan modification depends on re-default rates, which in turn can be affected by factors such as changes in housing values and unemployment. We cannot predict what the actual volume of loan modifications will be or the ultimate re-default rate, and therefore, we cannot be certain whether these programs will provide material benefits to us. Our estimates of the number of loans qualifying for modification programs are inherently uncertain. Although a moratorium does not affect the accrual of interest and other expenses on a loan, our master insurance policies contain covenants that require cooperation and loss mitigation by insured lenders. Unless a loan is modified during a moratorium to cure the default, at the expiration of the moratorium additional interest and expenses would be due which could result in our losses on loans subject to the moratorium being higher than if there had been no moratorium.

Problems associated with foreclosure process defects in the United States may cause claim payments to be deferred to later periods.

In the United States, some large mortgage lenders and servicers voluntarily suspended foreclosure actions in response to reports that certain mortgage servicers and other parties may have acted improperly in foreclosure proceedings. Where this occurred, we will evaluate our options under the applicable master policies to curtail interest and expense payments that could have been avoided absent a delay in the foreclosure action. While delays in foreclosure completion may temporarily delay the receipt of claims and increase the length of time a loan remains in our delinquent inventory, our estimated claim rates and claim amounts represent our best estimate of what we actually expect to pay on the loans in default as of the reserve date.

We compete with government-owned and government-sponsored enterprises in our U.S. mortgage insurance business, and this may put us at a competitive disadvantage on pricing and other terms and conditions.

Our U.S. mortgage insurance business competes with the FHA and, to a lesser degree, the VA, as well as, certain local- and state-level housing finance agencies. In particular, since 2008 there has been a significant

increase in the number of loans insured by the FHA. Separately, the government-owned and government-sponsored enterprises, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, may also compete with our U.S. mortgage insurance business through certain of their risk-sharing insurance programs.

Those competitors may establish pricing terms and business practices that may be influenced by motives such as advancing social housing policy or stabilizing the mortgage lending industry, which may not be consistent with maximizing return on capital or other profitability measures. In addition, those governmental enterprises typically do not have the same capital requirements that we and other mortgage insurance companies have and therefore may have financial flexibility in their pricing and capacity that could put us at a competitive disadvantage. In the event that a government-owned or sponsored entity in one of our markets determines to change prices significantly or alter the terms and conditions of its mortgage insurance or other credit enhancement products in furtherance of social or other goals rather than a profit or risk management motive, we may be unable to compete in that market effectively, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Changes in regulations that adversely affect the U.S. mortgage insurance market could affect our operations significantly and could reduce the demand for mortgage insurance.

In addition to the general regulatory risks that are described under “—Our insurance businesses are extensively regulated and changes in regulation may reduce our profitability and limit our growth” and under “—The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act subjects us to additional federal regulation, and we cannot predict the effect of such regulation on our business, results of operations or financial condition,” we are also affected by various additional regulations relating particularly to our U.S. mortgage insurance operations.

U.S. federal and state regulations affect the scope of our competitors’ operations, which has an effect on the size of the mortgage insurance market and the intensity of the competition in our U.S. mortgage insurance business. This competition includes not only other private mortgage insurers, but also U.S. federal and state governmental and quasi-governmental agencies, principally the FHA, and to a lesser degree, the VA, which are governed by federal regulations. Increases in the maximum loan amount that the FHA can insure, and reductions in the mortgage insurance premiums the FHA charges, can reduce the demand for private mortgage insurance. Decreases in the maximum loan amounts the GSEs will purchase or guarantee, increases in GSE fees, or decreases in the maximum loan-to-value ratio for loans the GSEs will purchase can also reduce demand for private mortgage insurance. Legislative and regulatory changes could cause demand for private mortgage insurance to decrease.

If Basel III rules are implemented in the United States in their proposed form, the rules could discourage the use of mortgage insurance in the United States. If countries implement Basel III rules in a manner that does not reward lenders for using mortgage insurance as a credit risk mitigant on high loan-to-value mortgage loans, or if lenders conclude that mortgage insurance does not provide sufficient capital incentives, then we may have to revise our product offerings to meet the new requirements and our results of operations may be materially adversely affected. The heightened prudential standards for large bank holding companies and systemically significant financial companies that were proposed by the Federal Reserve Board in December 2011 may also increase the usefulness of mortgage insurance if insurance of that kind is treated as reducing counterparty credit exposure. However, if mortgage insurance is used in that way, it will create a new counterparty credit exposure to the issuer of the insurance, which could limit any usefulness it may otherwise have.

Our U.S. mortgage insurance business, as a credit enhancement provider in the residential mortgage lending industry, is also subject to compliance with various federal and state consumer protection and insurance laws, including RESPA, the ECOA, the FHA, the Homeowners Protection Act, the FCRA, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and others. Among other things, these laws prohibit payments for referrals of settlement service business, providing services to lenders for no or reduced fees or payments for services not actually performed,

require fairness and non-discrimination in granting or facilitating the granting of credit, require cancellation of insurance and refund of unearned premiums under certain circumstances, govern the circumstances under which companies may obtain and use consumer credit information, and define the manner in which companies may pursue collection activities. Changes in these laws or regulations could materially adversely affect the operations and profitability of our U.S. mortgage insurance business.

A decrease in the volume of high loan-to-value home mortgage originations or an increase in the volume of mortgage insurance cancellations in the United States could result in a decline in our revenue.

We provide mortgage insurance primarily for high loan-to-value mortgages. Factors that could lead to a decrease in the volume of high loan-to-value mortgage originations include, but are not limited to:

•

an increase in the level of home mortgage interest rates and a reduction or loss of mortgage interest deductibility for federal income tax purposes;

•

a decline in economic conditions generally, or in conditions in regional and local economies;

•

the level of consumer confidence, which may be adversely affected by economic instability, war or terrorist events;

•

an increase in the price of homes relative to income levels;

•

adverse population trends, including lower homeownership rates;

•

high rates of home price appreciation, which for refinancings affect whether refinanced loans have loan-to-value ratios that require mortgage insurance; and

•

changes in government housing policy encouraging loans to first-time home buyers.

Many of these factors emerged during the recent economic downturn. A decline in the volume of high loan-to-value mortgage originations would reduce the demand for mortgage insurance and, therefore, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, a significant percentage of the premiums we earn each year in our U.S. mortgage insurance business are renewal premiums from insurance policies written in previous years. We estimate that approximately 90%, 87% and 91%, respectively, of our U.S. gross premiums earned in each of the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 were renewal premiums. As a result, the length of time insurance remains in-force is an important determinant of our mortgage insurance revenues. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and many other mortgage investors in the United States generally permit a homeowner to ask his loan servicer to cancel his mortgage insurance when the principal amount of the mortgage falls below 80% of the home’s value. Factors that tend to reduce the length of time our mortgage insurance remains in-force include:

•

declining interest rates, which may result in the refinancing of the mortgages underlying our insurance policies with new mortgage loans that may not require mortgage insurance or that we do not insure;

•

significant appreciation in the value of homes, which causes the size of the mortgage to decrease below 80% of the value of the home and enables the borrower to request cancellation of the mortgage insurance; and

•

changes in mortgage insurance cancellation requirements under applicable federal law or mortgage insurance cancellation practices by mortgage lenders and investors.

Our U.S. policy flow persistency rates increased from 46% for the year ended December 31, 2003 to elevated levels of 81%, 81% and 82% for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2013 and 2014, respectively. A decrease in persistency in the U.S. market generally would reduce the amount of our insurance in-force and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. However, higher persistency on certain products, especially A minus, Alt-A, ARMs and certain 100% loan-to-value loans, could have a material adverse effect if claims generated by such products remain elevated or increase.

The amount of mortgage insurance we write in the United States could decline significantly if alternatives to private mortgage insurance are used or lower coverage levels of mortgage insurance are selected.

There are a variety of alternatives to private mortgage insurance that may reduce the amount of mortgage insurance we write in the United States. These alternatives include:

•

originating mortgages that consist of two simultaneous loans, known as “simultaneous seconds,” comprising a first mortgage with a loan-to-value ratio of 80% and a simultaneous second mortgage for the excess portion of the loan, instead of a single mortgage with a loan-to-value ratio of more than 80%;

•

using government mortgage insurance programs, including those of the FHA and the VA;

•

holding mortgages in the lenders’ own loan portfolios and self-insuring;

•

using programs, such as those offered by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, requiring lower mortgage insurance coverage levels;

•

originating and securitizing loans in mortgage-backed securities whose underlying mortgages are not insured with private mortgage insurance or which are structured so that the risk of default lies with the investor, rather than a private mortgage insurer; and

•

using credit default swaps or similar instruments, instead of private mortgage insurance, to transfer credit risk on mortgages.

A decline in the use of private mortgage insurance in connection with high loan-to-value home mortgages for any reason would reduce the demand for flow mortgage insurance.

Potential liabilities in connection with our U.S. contract underwriting services could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We offer contract underwriting services to certain of our mortgage lenders in the United States, pursuant to which our employees and contractors work directly with the lender to determine whether the data relating to a borrower and a proposed loan contained in a mortgage loan application file complies with the lender’s loan underwriting guidelines or the investor’s loan purchase requirements. In connection with that service, we also compile the application data and submit it to the automated underwriting systems of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which independently analyze the data to determine if the proposed loan complies with their investor requirements.

Under the terms of our contract underwriting agreements, we agree to indemnify the lender against losses incurred in the event that we make material errors in determining whether loans processed by our contract underwriters meet specified underwriting or purchase criteria, subject to contractual limitations on liability. As a result, we assume credit and processing risk in connection with our contract underwriting services. If our reserves for potential claims in connection with our contract underwriting services are inadequate as a result of differences from our estimates and assumptions or other reasons, we may be required to increase our underlying reserves, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Other Risks

We have agreed to make payments to GE based on the projected amounts of certain tax savings we expect to realize as a result of our IPO. We will remain obligated to make these payments even if we do not realize the related tax savings and the payments could be accelerated in the event of certain changes in control.

Under the Tax Matters Agreement, we have an obligation to pay GE a fixed amount over approximately the next 9 years. This fixed obligation, the estimated present value of which was $216 million and $245 million as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, equals 80% (subject to a cumulative $640 million maximum amount) of the tax savings projected as a result of our IPO in 2004. Even if we fail to generate sufficient taxable income

to realize the projected tax savings, we will remain obligated to pay GE, and this could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. We could also, subject to regulatory approval, be required to pay GE on an accelerated basis in the event of certain changes in control of our company.

Provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws and our Tax Matters Agreement with GE may discourage takeover attempts and business combinations that stockholders might consider in their best interests.

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws include provisions that may have anti-takeover effects and may delay, deter or prevent a takeover attempt that our stockholders might consider in their best interests. For example, our certificate of incorporation and bylaws:

•

permit our Board of Directors to issue one or more series of preferred stock;

•

limit the ability of stockholders to remove directors;

•

limit the ability of stockholders to fill vacancies on our Board of Directors;

•

limit the ability of stockholders to call special meetings of stockholders and take action by written consent; and

•

impose advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals and nominations of directors to be considered at stockholder meetings.

Under our Tax Matters Agreement with GE, if any person or group of persons other than GE or its affiliates gains the power to direct the management and policies of our company, we could become obligated immediately to pay to GE the total present value of all remaining tax benefit payments due to GE over the full term of the agreement. The estimated present value of our fixed obligation as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 was $216 million and $245 million, respectively. Similarly, if any person or group of persons other than us or our affiliates gains effective control of one of our subsidiaries, we could become obligated to pay to GE the total present value of all such payments due to GE allocable to that subsidiary, unless the subsidiary assumes the obligation to pay these future amounts under the Tax Matters Agreement and certain conditions are met. The acceleration of payments would be subject to the approval of certain state insurance regulators, and we are obligated to use our reasonable best efforts to seek these approvals. This feature of the agreement could adversely affect a potential merger or sale of our company. It could also limit our flexibility to dispose of one or more of our subsidiaries, with adverse implications for any business strategy dependent on such dispositions.

Risks Relating to Our Common Stock

The Board of Directors has decided to suspend dividends on our common stock until further notice.

We paid quarterly dividends on our common stock from our IPO in May 2004 until November 2008 when the Board of Directors decided to suspend the payment of dividends on our common stock to enhance our liquidity and capital position as a result of the global financial crisis and the challenging economic environment. We cannot assure you when, whether or at what level we will resume paying dividends on our common stock.

Our stock price will fluctuate.

Stock markets in general, and our common stock in particular, have experienced significant price and volume volatility since late 2008. The market price and volume of our common stock may continue to be subject to significant fluctuations due not only to general stock market conditions but also to a change in sentiment in the market regarding our industry generally, as well as investor concern about, among other things, some of our products (including long-term care insurance), our operations, reserves, ratings, business prospects, liquidity and capital positions. In addition to the risk factors discussed above, the price and volume volatility of our common stock may be affected by, among other issues:

•

our financial performance and condition and future prospects;

•

operating results that vary from the expectations of securities analysts and investors;

•

operating and securities price performance of companies that investors consider to be comparable to us;

•

announcements of strategic developments, acquisitions and other material events by us or our competitors;

•

changes in global financial markets and global economies and general market conditions;

•

rating agency announcements or actions with respect to the ratings of our company and our subsidiaries or our competitors;

•

changes in laws and regulations affecting our business; and

•

market prices for our equity securities.

Stock price volatility and a decrease in our stock price could make it difficult for us to raise equity capital or, if we are able to raise equity capital, could result in substantial dilution to our existing stockholders.

Item 1B.

Unresolved Staff Comments

We have no unresolved comments from the staff of the SEC.

Item 2.

Properties

We own our headquarters facility in Richmond, Virginia, which consists of approximately 461,000 square feet in four buildings, as well as several facilities in Lynchburg, Virginia with approximately 450,000 square feet. In addition, we lease approximately 260,000 square feet of office space in 12 locations throughout the United States. We also own two buildings outside the United States with approximately 108,000 square feet, and we lease approximately 318,000 square feet in 47 locations outside the United States.

Most of our leases in the United States and other countries have lease terms of three to five years. Although some leases have longer terms, no lease has an expiration date beyond 2022. Our aggregate annual rental expense under all leases was $21 million during the year ended December 31, 2014.

We believe our properties are adequate for our business as presently conducted.

Item 3.

Legal Proceedings

See note 22 in our consolidated financial statements under “Part II—Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for a description of material pending litigation and regulatory matters affecting us.

Item 4.

Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5.

Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Market for Common Stock

Our Class A Common Stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “GNW.” The following table sets forth the high and low intra-day sales prices per share of our Class A Common Stock, as reported by the New York Stock Exchange, for the periods indicated:


2014	High		Low
First Quarter	$	18.26	$	14.24
Second Quarter	$	18.74	$	15.66
Third Quarter	$	17.85	$	12.64
Fourth Quarter	$	14.10	$	7.17

2013	High		Low
First Quarter	$	10.74	$	7.66
Second Quarter	$	11.48	$	8.98
Third Quarter	$	13.79	$	11.48
Fourth Quarter	$	15.78	$	12.48

As of February 12, 2015, we had 297 holders of record of our Class A Common Stock.

Common Stock Performance Graph

The following performance graph and related information shall not be deemed “soliciting material” nor to be “filed” with the SEC, nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any future filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each as amended, except to the extent we specifically incorporate it by reference into such filing.

100

The following graph compares the cumulative total stockholder return on our Class A Common Stock with the cumulative total stockholder return on the S&P 500 Insurance Index and the S&P 500 Stock Index.

LOGO


	2009		2010		2011		2012		2013		2014
Genworth Financial, Inc.	$	100.00	$	115.77	$	57.71	$	66.17	$	136.83	$	74.89
S&P 500 Insurance Index	$	100.00	$	115.80	$	106.21	$	126.49	$	185.56	$	200.94
S&P 500^®	$	100.00	$	115.06	$	117.49	$	136.30	$	180.44	$	205.14

Dividends

In November 2008, to enhance our liquidity and capital position in the challenging market environment, our Board of Directors suspended the payment of dividends on our common stock indefinitely. The declaration and payment of future dividends to holders of our common stock will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend on many factors including our receipt of dividends from our operating subsidiaries, our financial condition and results of operations, the capital requirements of our subsidiaries, legal requirements, regulatory constraints, our credit and financial strength ratings and such other factors as the Board of Directors deems relevant. We cannot assure you when, whether or at what level we will resume paying dividends on our common stock.

See “Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” for additional information.

We act as a holding company for our subsidiaries and do not have any significant operations of our own. As a result, our ability to pay dividends in the future will depend on receiving dividends from our subsidiaries. Our insurance subsidiaries are subject to the laws of the jurisdictions in which they are domiciled and licensed and consequently are limited in the amount of dividends that they can pay. See “Part I—Item 1—Business—Regulation.”

101

Item 6.

Selected Financial Data

The following table sets forth selected financial information. The selected financial information as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 and for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 has been derived from our consolidated financial statements, which have been audited by KPMG LLP and are included in “Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.” You should read this information in conjunction with the information under “Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” our consolidated financial statements, the related notes and the accompanying independent registered public accounting firm’s report, which are included in “Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”


	Years ended December 31,
(Amounts in millions)	2014			2013			2012		2011			2010
Consolidated Statements of Income Information
Revenues:
Premiums	$	5,431		$	5,148		$	5,041	$	5,688		$	5,833
Net investment income		3,242			3,271			3,343		3,380			3,266
Net investment gains (losses)		(20	)		(37	)		27		(195	)		(143	)
Insurance and investment product fees and other		912			1,021			1,229		1,050			760

Total revenues		9,565			9,403			9,640		9,923			9,716

Benefits and expenses:
Benefits and operating expenses		10,362			7,861			8,558		9,287			9,402
Interest expense		479			492			476		506			457

Total benefits and expenses		10,841			8,353			9,034		9,793			9,859

Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes		(1,276	)		1,050			606		130			(143	)
Provision (benefit) for income taxes		(228	)		324			138		(11	)		(279	)

Income (loss) from continuing operations		(1,048	)		726			468		141			136
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of taxes ⁽¹⁾		—			(12	)		57		36			45

Net income (loss)		(1,048	)		714			525		177			181
Less: net income attributable to noncontrolling interests ⁽²⁾		196			154			200		139			143

Net income (loss) available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders	$	(1,244	)	$	560		$	325	$	38		$	38

Income (loss) from continuing operations available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders per common share:
Basic	$	(2.51	)	$	1.16		$	0.55	$	—		$	(0.01	)

Diluted ⁽³⁾	$	(2.51	)	$	1.15		$	0.54	$	—		$	(0.01	)

Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of taxes, available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders per common share:
Basic ⁽¹⁾	$	—		$	(0.02	)	$	0.12	$	0.07		$	0.09

Diluted ⁽¹⁾	$	—		$	(0.02	)	$	0.12	$	0.07		$	0.09

Net income (loss) available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders per common share:
Basic	$	(2.51	)	$	1.13		$	0.66	$	0.08		$	0.08

Diluted ⁽³⁾	$	(2.51	)	$	1.12		$	0.66	$	0.08		$	0.08

Weighted-average common shares outstanding:⁽⁴⁾
Basic		496.4			493.6			491.6		490.6			489.3

Diluted ⁽³⁾		496.4			498.7			494.4		493.5			493.9

Cash dividends declared per common share	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—

102


	Years ended December 31,
(Amounts in millions)	2014			2013			2012			2011			2010
Selected Segment Information
Total revenues:
U.S. Life Insurance	$	6,587		$	6,330		$	6,250		$	6,130		$	5,786
International Mortgage Insurance		1,240			1,361			1,408			1,507			1,372
U.S. Mortgage Insurance		639			616			676			702			733
International Protection		837			786			822			1,022			1,112
Runoff		275			302			381			525			665
Corporate and Other		(13	)		8			103			37			48

Total	$	9,565		$	9,403		$	9,640		$	9,923		$	9,716

Income (loss) from continuing operations available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders:
U.S. Life Insurance	$	(1,405	)	$	384		$	274		$	356		$	215
International Mortgage Insurance		169			372			349			353			369
U.S. Mortgage Insurance		91			37			(114	)		(494	)		(578	)
International Protection		116			39			(59	)		90			73
Runoff		14			49			58			(37	)		19
Corporate and Other		(229	)		(309	)		(240	)		(266	)		(105	)

Total	$	(1,244	)	$	572		$	268		$	2		$	(7	)

Consolidated Balance Sheet Information
Total investments	$	73,238		$	68,613		$	74,379		$	71,902		$	68,433
All other assets ⁽⁵⁾		38,120			39,432			38,494			39,779			41,432
Assets associated with discontinued operations ⁽¹⁾		—			—			439			506			517

Total assets	$	111,358		$	108,045		$	113,312		$	112,187		$	110,382

Policyholder liabilities	$	73,987		$	70,544		$	71,609		$	70,363		$	69,323
Non-recourse funding obligations		1,996			2,038			2,066			3,256			3,437
Long-term borrowings		4,639			5,161			4,776			4,726			4,952
All other liabilities		13,939			14,682			17,019			17,630			19,079
Liabilities associated with discontinued operations ⁽¹⁾		—			—			61			80			81

Total liabilities	$	94,561		$	92,425		$	95,531		$	96,055		$	96,872

Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)	$	4,446		$	2,542		$	5,202		$	4,047		$	1,506
Noncontrolling interests ⁽²⁾	$	1,874		$	1,227		$	1,288		$	1,110		$	1,096
Total stockholders’ equity	$	16,797		$	15,620		$	17,781		$	16,132		$	13,510

U.S. Statutory Financial Information⁽⁶⁾
Statutory capital and surplus ⁽⁷⁾	$	5,409		$	5,104		$	4,489		$	4,604		$	4,885
Asset valuation reserve	$	311		$	272		$	218		$	149		$	133

⁽¹⁾

On August 30, 2013, we sold our wealth management business. This business was accounted for as discontinued operations and its financial position and results of operations were separately reported for all periods presented. Also included in discontinued operations was our tax and advisor unit, GFIS, which was part of our wealth management business until its sale on April 2, 2012. See note 25 in our consolidated financial statements under “Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for additional information related to discontinued operations.

⁽²⁾

Noncontrolling interests relate to the IPOs of our Australian and Canadian mortgage insurance businesses. On May 21, 2014, Genworth Australia, a holding company for Genworth’s Australian mortgage insurance business, completed its initial public offering of 220,000,000 of its ordinary shares. Following completion of the offering, we beneficially own 66.2% of the ordinary shares of Genworth Australia. We completed the IPO of our Canadian mortgage insurance business in July 2009 which reduced our ownership percentage to 57.5%. We currently hold approximately 57.3% of the outstanding common shares of Genworth Canada on a consolidated basis. See note 24 in our consolidated financial statements under “Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for additional information related to noncontrolling interests.

103

⁽³⁾

Under applicable accounting guidance, companies in a loss position are required to use basic weighted-average common shares outstanding in the calculation of diluted loss per share. Therefore, as a result of our loss from continuing operations available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders and net loss available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders for the year ended December 31, 2014, we were required to use basic weighted-average common shares outstanding in the calculation of diluted loss per share for the year ended December 31, 2014, as the inclusion of shares for stock options, restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and stock appreciation rights (“SARs”) of 5.6 million would have been antidilutive to the calculation. If we had not incurred a loss from continuing operations available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders and net loss available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders for the year ended December 31, 2014, dilutive potential weighted-average common shares outstanding would have been 502.0 million. Also, as a result of our loss from continuing operations available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders for the year ended December 31, 2010, we used basic weighted-average common shares outstanding in the calculation of diluted loss from continuing operations available to Genworth Financial, Inc.’s common stockholders per share.

⁽⁴⁾	The number of shares used in our calculation of diluted earnings per common share in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 was affected by stock options, RSUs and SARs and was calculated using the treasury method.

⁽⁵⁾

We have several significant reinsurance transactions with UFLIC, an affiliate of our former parent, in which we ceded certain blocks of structured settlement annuities, variable annuities and long-term care insurance. As a result of these transactions, we transferred investment securities to UFLIC and recorded a reinsurance recoverable that was included in “all other assets.” For a discussion of this transaction, refer to note 9 in our consolidated financial statements under “Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

⁽⁶⁾

We derived the U.S. Statutory Financial Information from Annual Statements of our U.S. insurance company subsidiaries that were filed with the insurance departments in states where we are domiciled and were prepared in accordance with statutory accounting practices prescribed or permitted by the insurance departments in states where we are domiciled. These statutory accounting practices vary in certain material respects from U.S. GAAP.

⁽⁷⁾	Combined statutory capital and surplus for our U.S. domiciled insurance subsidiaries includes surplus notes issued by our U.S. life insurance subsidiaries and statutorily required contingency reserves held by our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries.

104

Item 7.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion and analysis of our consolidated financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes included in “Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

Overview

Our business

We are dedicated to helping meet the insurance, retirement and homeownership needs of our customers, with a presence in more than 25 countries. We operate through three divisions: U.S. Life Insurance, Global Mortgage Insurance and Corporate and Other. Under these divisions, there are five operating business segments. The U.S. Life Insurance Division includes the U.S. Life Insurance segment. The Global Mortgage Insurance Division includes the International Mortgage Insurance and U.S. Mortgage Insurance segments. The Corporate and Other Division includes the International Protection and Runoff segments and Corporate and Other activities.

Our financial information

The financial information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K has been derived from our consolidated financial statements.

Revenues and expenses

Our revenues consist primarily of the following:

•

U.S. Life Insurance. The revenues in our U.S. Life Insurance segment consist primarily of:

•

net premiums earned on individual and group long-term care insurance, individual term life insurance and single premium immediate annuities with life contingencies;

•

net investment income and net investment gains (losses) on the segment’s separate investment portfolios; and

•

insurance and investment product fees and other, including surrender charges, mortality and expense risk charges, and other administrative charges.

•

International Mortgage Insurance. The revenues in our International Mortgage Insurance segment consist primarily of:

•

net premiums earned on international mortgage insurance policies; and

•

net investment income and net investment gains (losses) on the segment’s separate investment portfolio.

•

U.S. Mortgage Insurance. The revenues in our U.S. Mortgage Insurance segment consist primarily of:

•

net premiums earned on U.S. mortgage insurance policies and premiums assumed through our inter-segment reinsurance with our international mortgage insurance business;

•

net investment income and net investment gains (losses) on the segment’s separate investment portfolio; and

•

fee revenues from contract underwriting services.

•

International Protection. The revenues in our International Protection segment consist primarily of:

•

net premiums earned on lifestyle protection insurance policies;

•

net investment income and net investment gains (losses) on the segment’s separate investment portfolio; and

•

insurance and investment product fees and other, primarily third-party administration fees.

105

•

Runoff. The revenues in our Runoff segment consist primarily of:

•

net investment income and net investment gains (losses) on the segment’s separate investment portfolios; and

•

insurance and investment product fees and other, including mortality and expense risk charges, primarily from variable annuity contracts, and other administrative charges.

•

Corporate and Other. The revenues in Corporate and Other consist primarily of:

•

unallocated net investment income and net investment gains (losses); and

•

insurance and investment product fees from non-core businesses and eliminations of inter-segment transactions.

Our expenses consist primarily of the following:

•

benefits provided to policyholders and contractholders and changes in reserves;

•

interest credited on general account balances;

•

acquisition and operating expenses, including commissions, marketing expenses, policy and contract servicing costs, overhead and other general expenses that are not capitalized (shown net of deferrals);

•

amortization of DAC and other intangible assets;

•

goodwill impairment charges;

•

interest and other financing expenses; and

•

income taxes.

We allocate corporate expenses to each of our operating segments using various methodologies, including based on the amount of capital allocated to each operating segment.

Management’s discussion and analysis by segment contains selected operating performance measures including “sales” and “insurance in-force” or “risk in-force” which are commonly used in the insurance industry as measures of operating performance.

Management regularly monitors and reports sales metrics as a measure of volume of new and renewal business generated in a period. Sales refer to: (1) annualized first-year premiums for long-term care and term life insurance products; (2) annualized first-year deposits plus 5% of excess deposits for universal and term universal life insurance products; (3) 10% of premium deposits for linked-benefits products; (4) new and additional premiums/deposits for fixed annuities; (5) new insurance written for mortgage insurance; and (6) net written premiums for our lifestyle protection insurance business. Sales do not include renewal premiums on policies or contracts written during prior periods. We consider annualized first-year premiums/deposits, premium equivalents, new premiums/deposits, new insurance written and net written premiums to be a measure of our operating performance because they represent a measure of new sales of insurance policies or contracts during a specified period, rather than a measure of our revenues or profitability during that period.

Management regularly monitors and reports insurance in-force and risk in-force. Insurance in-force for our life, international mortgage and U.S. mortgage insurance businesses is a measure of the aggregate face value of outstanding insurance policies as of the respective reporting date. For risk in-force in our international mortgage insurance business, we have computed an “effective” risk in-force amount, which recognizes that the loss on any particular loan will be reduced by the net proceeds received upon sale of the property. Effective risk in-force has been calculated by applying to insurance in-force a factor of 35% that represents our highest expected average per-claim payment for any one underwriting year over the life of our businesses in Canada and Australia. Risk in-force for our U.S. mortgage insurance business is our obligation that is limited under contractual terms to the

106

amounts less than 100% of the mortgage loan value. We consider insurance in-force and risk in-force to be measures of our operating performance because they represent measures of the size of our business at a specific date which will generate revenues and profits in a future period, rather than measures of our revenues or profitability during that period.

We also include information related to loss mitigation activities for our U.S. mortgage insurance business. We define loss mitigation activities as rescissions, cancellations, borrower loan modifications, repayment plans, lender- and borrower-titled pre-sales, claims administration and other loan workouts. Estimated savings related to rescissions are the reduction in carried loss reserves, net of premium refunds and reinstatement of prior rescissions. Estimated savings related to loan modifications and other cure related loss mitigation actions represent the reduction in carried loss reserves. Estimated savings related to claims mitigation activities represent amounts deducted or “curtailed” from claims due to acts or omissions by the insured or the servicer with respect to the servicing of an insured loan that is not in compliance with obligations under our master policy. For non-cure related actions, including pre-sales, the estimated savings represent the difference between the full claim obligation and the actual amount paid. Loans subject to our loss mitigation actions, the results of which have been included in our reported estimated loss mitigation savings, are subject to re-default and may result in a potential claim in future periods, as well as potential future loss mitigation savings depending on the resolution of the re-defaulted loan. We believe that this information helps to enhance the understanding of the operating performance of our U.S. mortgage insurance business as loss mitigation activities specifically impact current and future loss reserves and level of claim payments.

Management also regularly monitors and reports a loss ratio for our businesses. For our mortgage and lifestyle protection insurance businesses, the loss ratio is the ratio of incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses to net earned premiums. For our long-term care insurance business, the loss ratio is the ratio of benefits and other changes in reserves less tabular interest on reserves less loss adjustment expenses to net earned premiums. We consider the loss ratio to be a measure of underwriting performance in these businesses and helps to enhance the understanding of the operating performance of our businesses.

An assumed tax rate of 35% is utilized in certain adjustments to net operating income and in the explanation of specific variances of operating performance.

These operating measures enable us to compare our operating performance across periods without regard to revenues or profitability related to policies or contracts sold in prior periods or from investments or other sources.

Business trends and conditions

Our business is, and we expect will continue to be, influenced by a number of industry-wide and product-specific trends and conditions.

General conditions and trends affecting our businesses

Financial and economic environment. The stability of both the financial markets and global economies in which we operate impacts the sales, revenue growth and profitability trends of our businesses. Credit market volatility continued into 2014 and credit spreads generally widened for most fixed-income asset classes in the third and fourth quarters of 2014, reversing the trend from the first half of 2014. During 2014, the U.S. and several international financial markets have been impacted by concerns regarding global economies and the rate and strength of recovery, particularly given recent political and geographical events in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, as well as the decrease in oil prices experienced in the fourth quarter of 2014.

While the U.S. housing market continues to recover with home affordability above historical levels in certain regions, an increase in mortgage interest rates more broadly may slow the overall housing recovery. Unemployment and underemployment levels in the United States decreased in 2014 and we expect unemployment and underemployment levels in the United States to gradually decrease over time. In Canada, the

107

housing market improved in 2014 driven by continued low interest rates that have maintained affordability as home prices have risen. Canadian employment data has generally been positive in 2014 and we expect job creation to remain steady with unemployment expected to marginally increase in 2015. In Australia, the overall housing market generally improved as modest economic growth and low interest rates persisted. The unemployment rate in Australia increased slightly during 2014 and we expect the unemployment rate to be relatively stable through 2015 as the economy continues to transition away from being commodity focused, impacting investment levels and mix in the economy. The Chinese economy had experienced significant growth over the past decade. This growth slowed during 2013 and into 2014 and the new Chinese administration began to implement economic and credit market reforms. Gross domestic product growth in China in 2014 was significantly lower than growth over the last decade with the slowest growth in the past five years being in 2014. Given the relative size of the Chinese economy, the impact of a significant change in the pace of economic expansion in China could impact global economies, partly as a result of lower commodity imports, particularly those from the Asia Pacific region, including Australia. Europe remained a challenging region with slow growth or a declining economic environment with lower lending activity and reduced consumer spending, particularly in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy. While certain areas within Europe showed a modest level of improvement during 2014, unemployment was just below record highs and we expect future economic growth in Europe to be modest. Additionally, Germany’s economy could be impacted by the ongoing conflict in the Ukraine and sanctions imposed on Russia, which could negatively impact other European markets. See “—Trends and conditions affecting our segments” below for a discussion regarding the impacts the financial markets and global economies have on our businesses.

Slow or varied levels of economic growth, coupled with uncertain financial markets and economic outlooks, changes in government policy, regulatory reforms and other changes in market conditions, influenced, and we believe will continue to influence, investment and spending decisions by consumers and businesses as they adjust their consumption, debt, capital and risk profiles in response to these conditions. These trends change as investor confidence in the markets and the outlook for some consumers and businesses shift. As a result, our sales, revenues and profitability trends of certain insurance and investment products have been and could be further impacted negatively or positively going forward. In particular, factors such as government spending, monetary policies, the volatility and strength of the capital markets, anticipated tax policy changes and the impact of global financial regulation reform will continue to affect economic and business outlooks and consumer behaviors moving forward.

The U.S. and international governments, the Federal Reserve, other central banks and other legislative and regulatory bodies have taken certain actions to support the economy and capital markets, influence interest rates, influence housing markets and mortgage servicing and provide liquidity to promote economic growth. These include various mortgage restructuring programs implemented or under consideration by the GSEs, lenders, servicers and the U.S. government. Outside of the United States, various governments and central banks have taken and continue to take actions to stimulate economies, stabilize financial systems and improve market liquidity. In aggregate, these actions had a positive effect in the short term on these countries and their markets; however, there can be no assurance as to the future level of impact these types of actions may have on the economic and financial markets, including levels of volatility. A delayed economic recovery period, a U.S. or global recession or regional or global financial crisis could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Investments and derivatives

Investments — credit and investment markets

Weaker global growth forecasts, sharply declining commodity prices and lower yields around the world marked the fourth quarter of 2014. In the United States, we believe mixed economic data and lower inflation expectations led the market to price in a Federal Funds target rate rise later in 2015. In Europe, the European Central Bank suggested it may increase stimulus through expanded asset purchases. A significant disruption affecting nearly all markets was the severe move in oil prices, with Brent crude oil dropping over 40% in the fourth quarter of 2014.

108

Credit spreads widened for most fixed-income asset classes during the fourth quarter of 2014, particularly in the energy sector where the oil price declines pressured the spreads of both investment grade and high yield issuers. In addition, declines in the price of oil and other commodities caused emerging market fixed-income indices to widen, further exacerbated by a corruption scandal in Brazil and economic sanctions on Russia. Near the end of the fourth quarter of 2014, demand for non-energy related issuers began to differentiate the markets and spreads tightened modestly.

We recorded net other-than-temporary impairments of $9 million during the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to $25 million during the year ended December 31, 2013. We believe low impairments across all asset classes are attributed to prevailing stable macroeconomic conditions and good credit risk management. Declines in interest rates and credit spreads have increased the value of our investments and derivatives, resulting in increases in net unrealized investment gains on securities of $1,583 million and derivatives qualifying as hedges of $751 million in other comprehensive income (loss) for the year ended December 31, 2014. Economic conditions will continue to impact the valuation of our investment portfolios and the amount of other-than-temporary impairments.

Looking ahead, while we view the current credit environment as generally stable and expect corporate defaults to remain relatively low, company-specific spread widening could occur in part from an environment in which companies have strong incentives to increase debt to improve shareholder returns. In addition, we would expect prolonged weakness in oil prices to continue to pressure smaller or highly leveraged energy companies, such as those in Russia. Our energy portfolio is predominantly investment grade. As such, the underlying credits have strong capacity to weather sustained, lower oil prices. We believe the current credit environment provides us with opportunities to invest across a variety of asset classes including expanding into a small allocation of alternative assets, but we anticipate our returns will continue to be pressured primarily because of low interest rates. See “—Investments and Derivative Instruments” for additional information on our investment portfolio.

Derivatives

Since December 31, 2014, we have taken several actions to mitigate the risk to our derivatives portfolio arising from our counterparties right to terminate their derivatives transactions with us following ratings downgrades. As of February 20, 2015, we have negotiated amendments to master swap agreements governing $6.1 billion notional of our derivatives portfolio, as a result of which the current ratings of Genworth Holdings and our life insurance subsidiaries are at least one-notch above the level at which counterparties could terminate the transactions under those agreements. Since December 31, 2014, we have moved $5.2 billion notional of our derivatives portfolio from bilateral over-the-counter agreements to clearing through the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”), which has required us to post initial margin of $25 million to the CME through our clearing agent. The customer agreements that govern our cleared derivatives contain provisions that enable our clearing agents to request initial margin in excess of CME requirements. So far, they have not done so, but may do so in the future. Because our clearing agent serves as a guarantor of our obligations to the CME, the termination provisions in customer agreements are not dependent on ratings. As of February 20, 2015, we continue to have $7.7 billion notional of bilateral over-the-counter derivatives under master swap agreements where the counterparty has the right to terminate all of its transactions with us based on our current ratings but has not done so. With respect to those trades, we are continuing to evaluate if additional actions to modify our master swap agreements or to replace current positions with new transactions are beneficial and possible at this time.

Trends and conditions affecting our segments

U.S. Life Insurance

Long-term care insurance. Results of our long-term care insurance business are influenced by sales, competitor actions, morbidity, mortality, persistency, investment yields, expenses, ability to achieve rate actions, changes in regulations, actions from rating agencies and reinsurance. Additionally, sales of our products are

109

impacted by the relative competitiveness of our offerings based on product features, pricing and commission levels, including the impact of in-force rate actions on distribution and consumer demand. Changes in regulations or government programs, including long-term care insurance rate action legislation, could impact our long-term care insurance business positively or negatively.

During the second quarter of 2014, we experienced meaningful increases in adverse claims experience for our long-term care insurance products, resulting in significant deterioration in operating income. During the third quarter of 2014, we completed a comprehensive review of our long-term care insurance claim reserves. This review was commenced as a result of adverse claims experience during the second quarter of 2014 and in connection with our regular review of our claim reserve assumptions during the third quarter of each year. As a result of this review, we made changes to our assumptions and methodologies relating to our long-term care insurance claim reserves primarily impacting claim termination rates, most significantly in later-duration claims, and benefit utilization rates, reflecting that claims are not terminating as quickly and claimants are utilizing more of their available benefits in aggregate than had previously been assumed in our reserve calculations. As a result of these changes, we increased our long-term care insurance claim reserves by $604 million, before reinsurance, during the third quarter of 2014. We will continue to regularly review our methodologies and assumptions in light of emerging experience and may be required to make further adjustments to our long-term care insurance claim reserves in the future. Any further changes to our claim reserves may have a materially negative impact on our results of operations, financial condition and business. During the fourth quarter of 2014, we completed our annual loss recognition testing of our long-term care insurance business and made changes to assumptions and methodologies primarily impacting claim termination rates, most significantly in later-duration claims, and benefit utilization rates. As a result, we recorded additional long-term care insurance reserves of $729 million, net of reinsurance, during the fourth quarter of 2014. In addition, as a result of our annual statutory cash flow testing of our long-term care insurance business in 2014, our New York insurance subsidiary recorded $39 million of additional statutory reserves in the fourth quarter of 2014 and will record an aggregate of $156 million of additional statutory reserves over the next four years. For a discussion of the actions we anticipate taking to address the increased capital needs of our U.S. life insurance business, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Regulated insurance subsidiaries.”

The annual loss ratios of certain of our long-term care insurance policies have been increasing over the past several years. We experience volatility in our loss ratios on a quarterly basis, caused by variances in claim terminations, claim severity and claim counts. Our rate actions may cause fluctuations in our loss ratios during the period when reserves are adjusted to reflect policyholders taking reduced benefits or non-forfeiture options within their policy coverage. In addition, we periodically review our claim reserve assumptions and methodologies based upon developing experience, which may result in changes to claim reserves, causing volatility in our operating results and loss ratios. Our loss ratio in 2014 was 129%, compared to 66% in 2013, and was significantly impacted by the results of our annual loss recognition testing in the fourth quarter of 2014 and our comprehensive claims review in the third quarter of 2014. The increase in reserves as a result of the reviews increased the loss ratio for our long-term care insurance business by 57 percentage points for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Our long-term care insurance sales decreased 33% during the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to the year ended December 31, 2013 and decreased 21% in the fourth quarter of 2014 from the third quarter of 2014. Our lower sales year over year in part reflected the impact of the overall long-term care insurance industry sales trends which were down in the first nine months of 2014 approximately 25% as compared to the same period last year as companies have left the market over time, have introduced price increases and product changes, as well as from consumer concern tied to industry rate actions. In 2013, we took steps to improve our profit and risk profile with the introduction of a product that included gender distinct pricing for single applicants and blood and lab underwriting requirements for all applicants. In addition, in the fourth quarter of 2013, we began filing for regulatory approval of a new product which increased premium rates but gave consumers the flexibility to choose the right fit for their long-term care needs, combined with the simplicity of prepackaged

110

benefits. As of December 31, 2014, this new product had been launched in 45 states. In the fourth quarter of 2014, we began filing for regulatory approval of an amended product to improve competitiveness, while meeting our targeted returns, by, among other things, reducing premium rates and adjusting coverage options. As of December 31, 2014, this amended product was filed in 38 states through the Interstate Insurance Compact. In 2015, the product either was or will be directly filed in additional states. The decreased sales quarter over quarter were related to the higher pricing on the new product and certain distributors suspending sales of our products as a result of rating agency actions in the fourth quarter of 2014. In support of this product, we are investing in key distribution and marketing initiatives to increase long-term care insurance sales. In addition, we are evaluating market trends and sales and investing in the development of products that we believe will help expand the long-term care insurance market over time and meet broader consumer needs. Given the observed sales trends, and that our investment in key distribution and marketing initiatives are expected only to increase sales over time, and therefore, have not been included in our projections until we experience the benefits of those actions, we recorded a goodwill impairment of $200 million during the third quarter of 2014. During the fourth quarter of 2014, given further uncertainty around sales projections, market realities and potential strategic options, we determined that it was more likely than not that the fair value of our long-term care insurance reporting unit was less than the carrying amount and that our remaining goodwill was not recoverable. As a result, we recorded a goodwill impairment of $154 million in the fourth quarter of 2014, reducing the goodwill balance to zero.

We also manage risk and limit capital allocated to our long-term care insurance business through utilization of external reinsurance in the form of coinsurance. In the first quarter of 2014, we executed an external reinsurance agreement reinsuring 20% of all sales of the long-term care insurance product introduced in early 2013. In July 2014, we executed an external reinsurance agreement reinsuring 20% of all sales of the long-term care insurance product launched in July 2014. External new business reinsurance levels vary and are dependent on a number of factors, including price, availability, risk tolerance and capital levels. Over time, there can be no assurance that affordable, or any, reinsurance will continue to be available. In addition, we have a portion of our long-term care insurance business reinsured internally by BLAIC, one of our Bermuda-domiciled captive reinsurance subsidiaries. One of our strategic priorities is to repatriate our long-term care insurance business from BLAIC into GLIC, which would unwind the reinsurance agreement between BLAIC and GLIC and release the related Brookfield guarantee thereof, in 2015. When we implement this (following receipt of required regulatory approvals), there will be no impact on our U.S. GAAP consolidated results of operations and financial condition as the financial impact of this reinsurance eliminates in consolidation, although we would anticipate an adverse impact on GLIC’s risk-based capital ratio, which would depend on the levels of capital in that company and that would transfer from BLAIC at the time.

As a result of ongoing challenges in our long-term care insurance business, we continue pursuing initiatives to improve the risk and profitability profile of our business including: premium increases on, and benefit reductions in, our in-force policies; product refinements; changes to our current product offerings in certain states; investing in care coordination capabilities and service offerings; refining underwriting requirements; maintaining tight expense management; actively exploring additional reinsurance strategies; executing investment strategies targeting higher returns; enhancing our financial and actuarial resources and analytical capabilities; and considering other actions to improve the performance of the overall business. These efforts have included evaluating the need for significant future in-force premium rate increases on issued policies. In the third quarter of 2012, we initiated a round of long-term care insurance in-force premium rate increases with an expectation of achieving an average premium increase in excess of 50% on three policy series of older generation policies and an average premium increase in excess of 25% on one early series of new generation policies. Subject to regulatory approval, this premium rate increase is expected to generate approximately $250 million to $300 million of additional annual premiums when fully implemented over the next several years. Reserve levels, and thus our expected profitability, have been impacted, and we expect they will continue to be impacted, by policyholder behavior in response to rate increases which could include taking reduced benefits or non-forfeiture options within their policy coverage. The goal of our rate actions is to mitigate losses on the three older generation policy series and help offset higher than priced-for loss ratios due to unfavorable performance and lower lapse rates than expected on one newer generation product, with returns lower than original expectations.

111

As of December 31, 2014, the initial round of rate actions had been approved in whole or in part in 47 states and six of those states that had not approved the request in whole have approved incremental rate increases in a subsequent round of rate action filings. As of December 31, 2014, our estimate of the net premium increase from these 47 initial state approvals and six subsequent approvals was approximately $200 million to $210 million when fully implemented by 2017. In the third quarter of 2013, we began filing for regulatory approval for premium rate increases ranging between 6% and 13% on more than $800 million in annualized in-force premiums on one of our new generation products. As of December 31, 2014, we have been notified by 30 states of their initial decision, of which 22 states approved all or part of the requested increase. We continue to pursue these rate increases in the states that have either not responded or initially denied our rate increase request. The approval process for in-force rate increases and the amount and timing of the rate increases approved varies by state. In certain states, the decision to approve or disapprove a rate increase can take several years. Upon approval, insureds are provided with written notice of the increase and increases are generally applied on the insured’s policy anniversary date. Therefore, the benefits of any rate increase are not fully realized until the implementation cycle is complete.

Continued low interest rates have also put pressure on the profitability and returns of our long-term care insurance business as higher yielding investments have matured and been replaced with lower-yielding investments. We seek to manage the impact of low interest rates through asset-liability management and hedging strategies for a portion of our long-term care insurance product cash flows.

Life insurance. Results of our life insurance business are impacted by sales, competitor actions, mortality, persistency, investment yields, expenses, reinsurance and statutory reserve requirements, among other factors. Additionally, sales of our products and persistency of our insurance in-force are dependent on competitive product features and pricing, underwriting, distribution and customer service. Shifts in consumer demand, competitors’ actions, relative pricing, return on capital or reinsurance decisions and other factors, such as regulatory matters affecting life insurance policy reserve levels, can also affect our sales levels.

In 2014, mortality experience was favorable to pricing expectations for term life insurance and unfavorable for universal life and term universal life insurance. Overall mortality results in 2014 were unfavorable compared to 2013. In 2013, we experienced favorable mortality results in our universal life, term universal life and term life insurance products as compared to priced for mortality assumptions. Mortality levels may deviate each period from historical trends. Between 1999 and 2009, we had a significant increase in term life insurance sales, as compared to 1998 and prior years. As our 15-year term life insurance policies written in 1999 have entered their post-level guaranteed premium rate period in 2014, we have experienced lower persistency compared to pricing. Due to the relatively small number of policies that have recently entered their post-level guaranteed premium rate period, the impact on our financial statements has not been material. As additional policies enter their post-level guaranteed premium rate period, we would expect DAC amortization to accelerate and premiums to decline and reduce profitability in our term life insurance products, in amounts that could be material, if persistency is lower than our original assumptions.

Life insurance sales increased 72% during the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to the year ended December 31, 2013 largely attributable to growth of the reintroduced term life insurance products, which we began offering in the fourth quarter of 2012. The business is transitioning to competitive indexed universal life insurance and linked-benefits products, and growth in sales on these products is expected to continue. However, the increase in permanent life product sales is not expected to exceed the moderation of sales in our term life insurance products in the near term. Given reduced overall sales projections and uncertainty in those projections from market realities and potential strategic actions, we determined that it was more likely than not that the fair value of our life insurance reporting unit was less than the carrying amount and that our remaining goodwill was not recoverable. As a result, we recorded goodwill impairments of $495 million during the second half of 2014, reducing the goodwill balance to zero.

Regulations XXX and AXXX require insurers to establish additional statutory reserves for term life insurance policies with long-term premium rate guarantees and for certain universal life insurance policies with

112

secondary guarantees, respectively. This increases the capital required to write these products. We have committed funding sources for approximately 95% of our anticipated peak level reserves currently required under Regulations XXX and AXXX. The NAIC adopted revised statutory reserving requirements for new and in-force secondary guarantee universal life business subject to Actuarial Guideline 38 (“AG 38”) provisions, which became effective December 31, 2012. These requirements reflected an agreement reached and developed by a NAIC Joint Working Group which included regulators from several states, including New York. The financial impact related to the revised statutory reserving requirements on our in-force reserves subject to the new guidance was not significant as of December 31, 2012. On September 11, 2013, the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) announced that it no longer supported the agreement reached by the NAIC Working Group and that it would require New York licensed companies, including our New York domiciled insurance subsidiary, to use an alternative interpretation of AG 38 for universal life insurance products with secondary guarantees. We finalized our discussions with the NYDFS about its alternative interpretation and recorded $70 million and $80 million of additional statutory reserves as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

During 2014, the NAIC adopted a new regulatory framework for the insurance industry’s use of captive life reinsurance subsidiaries, specifically those used to finance Regulations XXX and AG 38 reserves. The framework adopted by the NAIC does not apply to captive life reinsurance subsidiaries effective on or before December 31, 2014 and allows for their continued use prospectively. The framework assumes that Principles Based Reserving (“PBR”) will be adopted and requires captives to hold collateral at a level that approximates PBR. Accordingly, it is unclear if the NAIC will continue to allow the use of captives if PBR is not eventually adopted. If we were to discontinue our use of captive life reinsurance subsidiaries to finance statutory reserves in response to regulatory changes on a prospective basis, the reasonably likely impact would be increased costs related to alternative financing, such as third-party reinsurance, and potential reductions in or discontinuance of new term life or universal life with secondary guarantees insurance sales, all of which would adversely impact our consolidated results of operations and financial condition. In addition, we cannot be certain that affordable alternative financing would be available.

Fixed annuities. Results of our fixed annuities business are affected by investment performance, interest rate levels, slope of the interest rate yield curve, net interest spreads, equity market conditions, mortality, policyholder surrenders, expense and commission levels, new product sales, competitor actions and competitiveness of our offerings. Our competitive position within many of our distribution channels and our ability to grow this business depends on many factors, including product offerings, relative pricing and our overall ratings.

In fixed annuities, sales may fluctuate as a result of consumer demand, competitor actions, changes in interest rates, credit spreads, relative pricing, return on capital decisions and our approach to managing risk. We monitor and change prices and crediting rates on fixed annuities on a regular basis to maintain spreads and targeted returns. We have targeted distributors and producers and maintained sales capabilities that align with our strategy. We expect to continue to manage these distribution relationships while selectively adding or shifting towards other product offerings, including fixed indexed annuities. Equity market performance and volatility could result in additional gains or losses, although associated hedging activities are expected to mitigate these impacts.

Following adverse rating actions after the announcement of our results for the third quarter 2014, several of our distributors suspended distribution of our products. Those distributors made up approximately 16% of the sales of our fixed annuity products. We expect that we will continue to be adversely impacted by these recent rating actions. In addition, we cannot predict the outcome of pending rating agency reviews and their potential impacts on our fixed annuity sales.

Refinements of product offerings and related pricing, including ongoing evaluation of commission structures and changes in investment strategies, support our objective of achieving appropriate risk-adjusted returns. Sales of fixed annuities increased $6 million during the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to the

113

year ended December 31, 2013. The increase in sales was a function of increased penetration in the fixed indexed annuity market, higher overall interest rate environment in 2014 compared to the first nine months of 2013, and relatively low sales in the first half of 2013 due to price competition. Sales of fixed annuities increased $124 million during the fourth quarter of 2014 compared to the third quarter of 2014 mainly as a result of competitors lowering crediting rates, leading to more competitive product positioning for our products.

International Mortgage Insurance

Results of our international mortgage insurance business are affected by changes in regulatory environments, employment levels, consumer borrowing behavior, lender mortgage-related strategies, including lender servicing practices, and other economic and housing market influences, including interest rate trends, home price appreciation or depreciation, mortgage origination volume, levels and aging of mortgage delinquencies and movements in foreign currency exchange rates.

Canada and Australia comprise approximately 99% of our international mortgage insurance primary risk in-force. These established markets will continue to be key drivers of revenues and earnings in our international mortgage insurance business. During 2014, many foreign currencies weakened against the U.S. dollar, in particular the Canadian dollar and Australian dollar, which negatively impacted the underlying reported results of our international mortgage insurance business. Any future movement in foreign exchange rates could impact future results.

In Canada, the housing market improved in 2014 driven by continued low interest rates that have maintained affordability as home prices have risen. Canadian employment data has generally been positive in 2014 with the unemployment rate closing the year at 6.6%. We expect job creation to remain steady but modest with unemployment expected to marginally increase in 2015 primarily driven by concerns of decreasing oil prices and its impact to the oil producing provinces of Canada. In response to the recent sharp drop in oil prices, the Bank of Canada decreased the overnight interest rate to 0.75% in January 2015, with the expectation that the low interest rate environment will continue through 2015.

Home sales in Canada increased 5% in 2014, with tight supply continuing to pressure prices in select urban markets with the resale market remaining at or near balanced market conditions. We expect a slight decrease in resale activity as the housing market moderates in 2015, while we expect national home prices to increase slightly during 2015. Going forward, we expect the growth rate of the high loan-to-value market to keep pace with the change in housing resale activity and home price appreciation.

Economic growth as measured by the Canadian gross domestic product is expected to grow by 2.1% in 2015 based on the recent Bank of Canada forecast as released in the Monetary Policy Report in January 2015, down slightly from an estimated 2.4% in 2014. We expect the Canadian gross domestic product growth in 2015 to be fueled by a stronger U.S. economy and a weaker Canadian dollar that benefits exports in Central Canada and British Columbia, offset by the negative impact of lower oil prices. The recent decline in oil prices is an emerging risk due to its potential impact on employment and housing, especially in the provinces of Alberta, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. We will continue to monitor the impact of oil prices as part of our proactive portfolio risk management strategy.

In the 2013 federal budget, the Canadian government proposed to gradually limit the insurance of low loan-to-value mortgages to only those mortgages that will be used in CMHC securitization programs. In addition, the Canadian government has indicated an intention to prohibit the use of any taxpayer-backed insured mortgage, both high and low loan-to-value, as collateral in securitization vehicles that are not sponsored by CMHC. We anticipate the related legislation will be introduced in 2015. On December 1, 2014, CMHC announced a price increase to its National Housing Act Mortgage-Backed Securities (“NHA MBS”) guarantee fees effective April 1, 2015. Under the NHA MBS Program, CMHC guarantees timely payment of principal and interest to purchasers of the mortgage-backed securities backed by pools of eligible insured mortgages. The NHA MBS fees are paid by

114

lenders in addition to the mortgage insurance premium. Although it is difficult to determine the full impact of these changes at this time, we believe these fees will decrease demand for low loan-to-value mortgage insurance.

On November 6, 2014, OSFI published the B-21 Guideline. In the B-21 Guideline, OSFI set out principles that promote and support sound residential mortgage insurance underwriting. These six principles focus on three main themes: i) governance, development of business objectives and strategy, and oversight; ii) interaction with lenders as part of the underwriting process; and iii) internal underwriting operations and risk management. The B-21 Guideline also enhances disclosure requirements, which will support greater transparency, clarity and public confidence in mortgage insurers’ residential mortgage insurance underwriting practices. Genworth Canada is positioned to comply with the B-21 Guideline by the implementation deadline of June 30, 2015.

In Australia, the overall economy continued to expand during 2014, though at a more modest pace than in prior years, with ongoing evidence of variation in economic activity across sectors and regions. At the same time, housing activity improved primarily from sustained low interest rates. The unemployment rate was 6.1% at the end of 2014 after reaching a 12 year high in November 2014 of 6.3%. We expect unemployment to be relatively stable through 2015 as the economy continues to transition away from being commodity focused, impacting investment levels and mix in the economy.

The Australian housing market is moving into 2015 with substantial momentum, with home values 7.9% higher than a year ago. The Sydney housing market continues to be the major driver with an annual growth rate of 12%. We expect home prices in 2015 will continue to rise, albeit at subdued levels, due to strong immigration, limited housing supply and the record low interest rates supporting improved affordability.

The Reserve Bank of Australia reduced the official cash rate from 2.50% to 2.25% in February 2015 as Australian economic conditions are somewhat weaker than expected. The Reserve Bank of Australia expect the current reduction to add further support to demand, to foster sustainable growth and inflation outcomes consistent with their targets.

On May 15, 2014, Genworth Australia, a holding company for Genworth’s Australian mortgage insurance business, priced its IPO of 220,000,000 of its ordinary shares at an initial public offering price of AUD$2.65 per ordinary share. The offering closed on May 21, 2014. Following completion of the offering, Genworth Financial beneficially owns 66.2% of the ordinary shares of Genworth Australia. The third quarter of 2014 was the first full quarter reflecting a minority interest, which reduced net income by 33.8% for portions attributable to third parties.

In December 2013, the Australian Government announced that there would be an inquiry into Australia’s financial system. The FSI made a number of recommendations, which were released by the Australian government in December 2014. The FSI has recommended, among other things, that capital levels for internal ratings-based ADIs be raised against residential real estate risks. The FSI has also recommended narrowing the average risk-weight gap between average risk-weights for the internal ratings-based ADIs and other ADIs to help competition. In releasing the FSI’s recommendations, the Australian Treasurer commented that the FSI’s recommendations on bank capital are for APRA and the Reserve Bank of Australia to consider as independent regulators. At this time, it is difficult to determine the impact of these recommendations.

The overall economic environment in Europe remains fragile as unemployment is hovering just below record highs and we expect future economic growth to be modest. We are seeing a slow resurgence in high loan-to-value lending in our target countries in Europe as lenders begin to slowly retest these markets for the first time since the global financial crisis. As a result of the lingering economic recession, we have seen an elevated number of delinquencies and lower cures in our older books of business, most notably in Ireland, contributing to higher losses over the last few years. However, these books are well seasoned now and as a result we saw a reduction in net new delinquencies on these books during 2014. Even though our newer books of business are less seasoned, they are performing well in comparison to pricing expectations. In the fourth quarter of 2014,

115

lender settlements reduced active delinquencies by approximately 40% and capped our exposure in Ireland to approximately $60 million or about 3% of our total outstanding risk in-force in Europe. Going into 2015, we expect to continue our strategy of only writing new business in Italy, Finland, Germany and the United Kingdom.

U.S. Mortgage Insurance

Results of our U.S. mortgage insurance business are affected by the following factors: competitor actions; unemployment or underemployment levels; other economic and housing market trends, including interest rates, home prices, mortgage origination volume mix and practices; the levels and aging of mortgage delinquencies, which may be affected by seasonal variations; the inventory of unsold homes; lender modification and other servicing efforts; and resolution of pending or any future litigation, among other items. The impact of prior years’ weakness and uncertainty in the domestic economy, related levels of unemployment and underemployment and resulting increase in foreclosures, the number of borrowers seeking loan modifications and the level of housing inventories with the related impact on home values, all combined to contribute adversely to the performance of our insured portfolio relating to our 2005 through 2008 book years. Going forward, we expect moderate economic growth characterized by ongoing modest improvement in home values coupled with an expectation that unemployment and underemployment levels will continue to gradually decrease over time. Our results are subject to the continued recovery of the U.S. housing market and the extent of the adverse impact of seasonality that we have experienced historically in the second half of the year.

Driven by lower interest rates and a strong refinancing market, the mortgage originations market recovered and strengthened during 2012 and 2013. During this same period, we continued to benefit from an improved private mortgage market penetration rate as the private mortgage insurance industry became more competitive against the FHA alternative that was driven in part by FHA price, risk management and cancelability actions. While mortgage originations were down in the fourth quarter of 2014 as a result of expected seasonal trends and were lower overall compared to the prior year, purchase originations were higher year over year. This increase in the purchase originations market, which resulted in an increase in the private mortgage insurance penetration rate in 2014 over the prior year, was driven in part by a market shift towards higher levels of purchase originations and away from refinancing activities. We continue to believe that, as the mortgage originations market has moved from the higher level of refinancing activities to that of a larger purchase originations market, the private mortgage insurance industry market share has strengthened over time. However, in January 2015, the FHA announced a reduction in annual mortgage insurance premiums charged to borrowers under its mortgage insurance program. This premium cut will make the FHA more competitive in the market and may have a material adverse effect on private mortgage insurers’ ability to sustain market share.

We continue seeing a modest easing of lender credit policy standards for loans that fall within our own credit guidelines. In December 2013, the acting director of the FHFA published a proposal to increase GSE loan fees. In January 2014, the newly appointed director of the FHFA suspended implementation of the proposed increases. FHFA subsequently published a request for input on a series of questions related to GSE fee policy and implementation, to which we responded by way of a comment letter at the FHFA’s request in August 2014. A final rule is still pending. Potential changes stemming from a FHFA review of proposed increases to existing GSE fees could have an impact on mortgage originations and on the competitiveness of private mortgage insurance versus that of FHA insurance.

In late 2013, we announced reduced pricing and expanded underwriting guidelines that are more in line with industry prices and guideline standards, which we believe, notwithstanding recent FHA price reductions, over time may continue to maintain our competitiveness in the mortgage insurance market while maintaining what we believe will be a profitable book of business. As a result, our U.S. mortgage insurance market share has grown approximately two percentage points since the fourth quarter of 2013 driven in part by the impact of favorable pricing changes that went into effect over these periods and the quality of our service offering. During the fourth quarter of 2014, we increased the level of single premium lender-paid new insurance written reflecting our participation in this product market. Future volumes of this insurance product will vary depending upon the evaluation of the underlying risk profile associated with these transactions.

116

While home affordability is above historical levels in certain regions of the United States, an increase in mortgage interest rates more broadly may slow the overall housing recovery. Meanwhile, we continue to manage the quality of new business through prudent underwriting guidelines, which we modify from time to time when circumstances warrant in a manner we expect will limit the amount of coverage we write on riskier loans. As of December 31, 2014, loans modified through the Home Affordable Refinance Program (“HARP”), accounted for approximately $0.3 billion of insurance in the fourth quarter of 2014, and approximately $18.9 billion of insurance for the inception to date period through December 31, 2014. For financial reporting purposes, we report HARP modified loans as a modification of the coverage on existing insurance in-force rather than new insurance written. Loans modified through HARP have extended amortization periods and reduced interest rates, which reduce borrower’s monthly payments. Over time, we expect these modified loans to result in extended premium streams and a lower incidence of default. The government has recently extended HARP through the year ending December 31, 2016.

On July 10, 2014, the FHFA released publicly a draft of the revised PMIERs. These requirements, as drafted, contemplate an effective date for compliance 180 days after the final publication date and final publication currently is anticipated to be towards the end of the first quarter or beginning of the second quarter of 2015. In addition, the requirements permit a transition period, subject to GSE approval, of two years from the publication date to meet the required capital levels. We provided comments on September 8, 2014 pursuant to the public request for input and we will continue to work with the FHFA and GSEs in an effort to have appropriate refinements made before the new requirements are finalized.

We previously disclosed our estimates of the additional capital required to meet the revised draft PMIERs in their current form and operate our business as being between $500 million and $700 million as of the date the new requirements are anticipated to become effective. Our estimate is based on the revised draft PMIERs, as we understand them, and is subject to change. In this regard, the amount of additional capital that we believe will be required to meet the Net Asset Requirements, as defined in the revised draft PMIERs, and operate our business is dependent upon, among other things, (i) the extent the final PMIERs as ultimately adopted differ materially from the current draft, including with respect to the amount and timing of additional capital requirements and the amount of capital credit provided to various types of assets; (ii) the way the requirements are applied and interpreted by the GSEs and FHFA as and after they are implemented; (iii) the future performance of the U.S. housing market; (iv) our generating and having expected U.S. mortgage insurance business earnings, available assets and risk-based required assets (including as they relate to the value of the shares of our Canadian mortgage insurance subsidiary that are owned by our U.S. mortgage insurance business as a result of share price and foreign exchange movements or otherwise), reducing risk in-force and reducing delinquencies as anticipated, and writing anticipated amounts and types of new U.S. mortgage insurance business; and (v) our projected overall financial performance, capital and liquidity levels being as anticipated. As a result, the amount of required capital may vary significantly from the amounts currently anticipated.

We currently believe we have a variety of sources we could utilize to satisfy these capital requirements, and currently intend to utilize primarily reinsurance (or similar) transactions, together with cash available at the holding company, to satisfy them. We have continued to make progress on potential reinsurance transactions. We are awaiting finalization of the PMIERs and ultimate reinsurance transaction terms remain subject to modification. Our use of reinsurance or similar transactions depends upon, among other things, the availability of the markets for these transactions, the costs and other terms of reinsurance or the other transactions, the GSEs’ approach to, and the capital treatment for, these reinsurance or the other transactions, the performance of the U.S. mortgage insurance business, and the absence of unforeseen developments. Another potential capital source includes, but is not limited to, the issuance of securities by Genworth Financial or Genworth Holdings.

We currently intend that our U.S. mortgage insurance business will meet the additional capital requirements contained in the revised draft PMIERs by the date such guidelines become effective. We will seek to utilize the transition period provided for in the draft guidelines if we do not comply by the anticipated effective date (subject to GSE approval).

117

In December 2013, Genworth Holdings issued $400 million of senior notes in anticipation of increased capital requirements then expected to be imposed by the GSEs in connection with the revised draft PMIERs. Following the issuance of the senior notes in December 2013, Genworth Financial contributed $100 million of the proceeds to GMICO, our primary U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary, with an additional $300 million contributed to Genworth Mortgage Holdings, LLC, a U.S. mortgage holding company. In advance of the release of the draft PMIERs, in May 2014, we contributed the $300 million that was being held at the U.S. mortgage holding company to GMICO.

As of December 31, 2014, reflecting the favorable impact of the above-referenced $300 million capital contribution in May 2014, GMICO’s risk-to-capital ratio under the current regulatory framework as established under North Carolina law and enforced by the NCDOI, GMICO’s domestic insurance regulator, was approximately 14.3:1, compared with a risk-to-capital ratio of approximately 19.3:1 as of December 31, 2013. This risk-to-capital ratio remains below the NCDOI’s maximum risk-to-capital ratio of 25:1. The NCDOI’s current regulatory framework by which GMICO’s risk-to-capital ratio is calculated differs from the capital requirement methodology in the revised draft PMIERs. GMICO’s ongoing risk-to-capital ratio will depend principally on the magnitude of future losses incurred by GMICO, the effectiveness of ongoing loss mitigation activities, new business volume and profitability, as well as the amount of policy lapses and the amount of additional capital that is generated within the business or capital support (if any) that we provide. Our estimate of the amount and timing of future losses and these foregoing factors are inherently uncertain, require significant judgment and may change significantly over time.

The NAIC is reviewing the current Mortgage Guaranty Model Act, including minimum capital and surplus requirements for mortgage insurers through the MGIWG. The MGIWG has not established a date by which it must make proposals to change such requirements. However, as we learn more specific information about these NAIC activities, we continue to assess the potential impact, if any, that these new requirements may have on our U.S. mortgage insurance business and evaluate the options potentially available to meet any legislative or regulatory measures adopted as a result of the NAIC recommendations.

In December 2014, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced that they would resume purchases of certain loans with down payments as low as 3%. This change in policy could result in the GSEs purchasing more loans with private mortgage insurance. However, the recent move by the FHA to lower its annual premium may limit the ability of private mortgage insurers to compete in this market. In addition, FHFA issued for comment a proposal to reduce GSE loan limits. Comments on that proposal were due in March 2014, to which we filed a comment letter response and to date the FHFA has not yet issued a final determination. If implemented, lower loan limits could also limit demand for mortgage loans with private mortgage insurance coverage. In October 2014, U.S. federal regulators published a final rule regarding the credit risk retention provision under the Dodd-Frank Act. The revised rules propose to define “qualified residential mortgages” to include low-down-payment mortgage loans, which is consistent with the definition of “qualified mortgages” that is already adopted by the CFPB. We also continue to believe that the mortgage insurance industry level of market penetration and eventual market size will continue to be affected by any actions taken by the GSEs, the FHA, the FHFA, U.S. Congress or the U.S. government impacting housing or housing finance policy, underwriting standards, loan limits or related reforms.

While we continue to experience an ongoing decrease in the level of new delinquencies, the performance of our portfolio in recent periods continues to be adversely affected by our 2005 through 2008 book years, although we believe these loans peaked in their delinquency development during the first quarter of 2010. While this amount has declined from prior years, delinquencies for these book years continue as the principal source of new delinquencies reported to us. Beginning in mid-2010, we saw an increase in foreclosure starts as well as an increase in our paid claims as late stage delinquency loans go through foreclosure. While foreclosure starts continue at a pace higher than foreclosure start levels in periods before mid-2010, we are seeing a decline in the number of foreclosure starts currently, which we believe is in part a result of the implementation of a new CFPB mortgage servicing rule (the “CFPB Rule”) that requires lenders and servicers to defer foreclosure starts until a borrower is at least 120-days delinquent to permit possible loan modification or workout solutions. We believe

118

the deferral of the foreclosure start date, coupled with the CFPB Rule’s early intervention provisions that require a lender or servicer to utilize good faith efforts to establish live contact with delinquent borrowers and provide written notice of available loss mitigation options, may result in additional loan workout or modification solutions that would ultimately reduce the number of foreclosure actions from these early stage delinquencies. In addition, we have seen differences in performance among loan servicers regarding the ability to modify loans and avoid foreclosure. Moreover, a lengthening of the foreclosure process itself particularly in judicial foreclosure states has led to increased claims expense relative to foreclosures conducted in the pre-financial crisis environment. Depending on how experience evolves going forward, we may need to adjust our reserve frequency or severity assumptions that could either increase or decrease reserves over time as experience from these programs continues to emerge.

Expanded efforts in the mortgage servicing market to modify loans and improved underwriting guidelines and mortgage servicing practices have combined to improve performance of our 2009 through 2014 book years compared with the performance of insured loans from prior book years that remain within our insured loan portfolio. This improved performance level, coupled with the diminished impact of our 2005 through 2008 book years as new delinquencies related to those insured loans continue to moderate, has resulted in ongoing reductions in overall delinquency levels through 2013 and 2014. While we continue to see benefits from loan modification actions on newer delinquencies within our portfolio, loan modification efforts have continued to remain more difficult to complete on the older delinquencies within our delinquent loan population. We have seen the older delinquencies that remain unresolved within our portfolio, particularly those from the 2005 through 2008 book years, continue to age through 2014. Both foreclosures and liquidations remained elevated through the same period, thereby resulting in ongoing elevated levels of loss reserves and claims. We believe that the ability to cure delinquent loans is dependent upon such things as employment levels, home values and mortgage interest rates. In addition, while we continue to execute on our loan modification strategy, which cures the underlying delinquencies and improves the ability of borrowers to meet the debt service on the mortgage loans going forward, we have seen the level of ongoing loan modification actions decline moderately during the period from 2011 through 2014 compared with the levels we experienced during preceding periods. We expect our level of loan modifications to continue to decline going forward in line with the expected reduction in delinquent loans and because of the continuing aging of delinquencies. However, we further expect the rate at which we modify newly delinquent loans to remain steady as new programs take effect and the overall economy continues improving over time.

Our loss mitigation activities, including those relating to workouts, loan modifications, pre-sales, rescissions, claims administration (including curtailment of claim amounts) and targeted settlements, net of reinstatements or adjustments, resulted in an estimated reduction of expected losses of $342 million and $563 million, respectively, including $265 million and $347 million, respectively, from workouts and loan modifications, during the year ended December 31, 2014 and 2013.

During the four-year period ended December 31, 2014, benefits from loss mitigation activities within our delinquent loan population have shifted from rescission actions that took place in years prior to 2011 to other loan modification activities and reviews of loan servicing and claims administration compliance from which we expect a majority of our loss mitigation benefits to arise going forward. While we expect to continue evaluating compliance of the insured or its loan servicer with respect to its servicing obligations under our master policy for loans insured thereunder and may curtail claim amounts payable based on our evaluations of such compliance, we cannot predict the extent or level at which such claim curtailments will continue.

Although loan servicers continue to pursue a wide range of approaches to execute appropriate loan modifications, government-sponsored programs such as Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) continue to result in fewer modifications as alternative programs have gained momentum. As a result of lower benefits from these government-sponsored programs, we have experienced higher levels of loss reserves and paid claims. In 2014, the Obama Administration announced that it would extend HAMP through December 31, 2015, and expand borrower eligibility by adjusting certain underwriting requirements. In addition, incentives paid to

119

the owner of a loan that qualifies for principal reduction under HAMP were increased and, for the first time, offered to the GSEs. However, to date, the GSEs are not participating in this program. While the impact of the these program extensions to date has remained positive, there can be no assurance that the increase in the number of loans that are modified under HAMP, including mortgage loans we insure currently, is sustainable over time or that any such modifications will succeed in ultimately avoiding foreclosure. In addition, while borrowers who benefitted from loan modifications under HAMP were provided mortgage payment relief through substantial interest rate reductions, beginning in the third quarter of 2014, those same borrowers began to experience a gradual interest rate increase of up to 1% a year, known as interest rate resets, until their mortgage interest rate adjusts to the market rate at the time of their loan modification. These interest rate resets are in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed to at the time of the underlying HAMP loan modification. While the government and the mortgage services industry remain committed to working with borrowers under this program, we cannot predict how these HAMP interest rate resets will affect the successes achieved under this program or if the resulting effect of avoiding foreclosure is sustainable over time once the impact of the rate reset process evolves. Depending upon the mix of loss mitigation activity, market trends, employment levels in future periods and other general economic impacts which influence the U.S. residential housing market, we could see additional adverse loss reserve development going forward. We expect the primary source of new loss reserves for expected claims to come from new delinquencies.

We have lender captive reinsurance programs in place in which we share portions of our premiums associated with flow insurance written on loans originated or purchased by lenders with captive insurance entities of these lenders in exchange for an agreed upon level of loss coverage above a specified attachment point. We have exhausted certain captive reinsurance tiers for our 2004 through 2008 book years based on loss development trends. While we continue to receive cash benefits from these captive arrangements at the time of claim payment, the level of benefit is expected to continue to decline going forward due to exhaustion of reinsurance as more reinsurers satisfy their contractual obligations such that remaining risk is borne by GMICO. All of our captive reinsurance arrangements are in runoff with no new books of business being added going forward. However, while we have no plans currently to expand our lender captive reinsurance program, we continue to consider appropriate new third-party reinsurance arrangements as potential available sources of capital for our U.S. mortgage insurance business.

International Protection

Growth and performance of our lifestyle protection insurance business is dependent on economic conditions and other factors, including competitor actions, consumer lending and spending levels, unemployment trends, client account penetration and mortality and morbidity trends. Additionally, the types and mix of our products will vary based on regulatory and consumer acceptance of our products.

Although consumer lending levels in Europe have stabilized, the region remains challenged particularly given concerns regarding various European economies and the lingering effect of the European debt crisis. Unemployment rates in the fourth quarter of 2014 remained at levels experienced since the second quarter of 2014 with regional variation but have declined since the fourth quarter of 2013. In aggregate, European gross domestic product continued to grow in 2014, building on the growth in the second half of 2013 and reversing the negative trend experienced in the first half of 2013.

Net operating income of our lifestyle protection insurance business for the year ended December 31, 2014 decreased from the year ended December 31, 2013 as higher claim reserves, higher commissions and lower net investment income were partially offset by higher premiums in 2014. In the fourth quarter of 2014, our lifestyle protection insurance business reported a net operating loss of $4 million from the negative impact of the strengthening of the U.S. dollar against the Euro and currencies in the United Kingdom, as well as higher reserve strengthening. New claim registrations decreased 14% in the year ended December 31, 2014 from 2013 levels. We could experience higher losses if claim registrations increase, particularly with continued high unemployment in Europe. Our loss ratio for the year ended December 31, 2014 was 28% compared to 25% for the year ended December 31, 2013 as losses increased, partially offset by higher premiums in 2014.

120

We have strengthened our focus in Europe on key strategic client relationships and are de-emphasizing our distribution with some other distributors, which had failed to achieve desired sales and profitability levels. This focus has enabled us to better serve our strategic clients and promote improved profitability and a lower cost structure. Additionally, we continue to pursue expanding our geographical distribution into Latin America and have secured an agreement with a large insurance partner. We are currently working with this partner to establish product, distribution and servicing capabilities and are now actively selling products in Peru, Colombia and Mexico.

Assuming the economies and lending environment in Europe are stable and do not improve in the near term, we expect our lifestyle protection insurance business to produce only slightly positive earnings in 2015. With our focus on enhanced distribution capabilities in Europe and growth in select new markets, we anticipate these efforts, coupled with sound risk and cost management disciplines, should, over time, improve profitability and help offset the impact of economic or employment pressures as well as lower levels of consumer lending in Europe. However, depending on the economic situation in Europe, we could experience declines in sales and operating results.

Distributor conduct associated with the sale of payment protection insurance products is currently under regulatory scrutiny in Italy. While the outcome of these reviews is unknown at this time and our distributors are not Genworth employees, the outcome could impact how the product is distributed and could have a negative impact on our sales.

Runoff

Results of our Runoff segment are affected by investment performance, interest rate levels, net interest spreads, equity market conditions, mortality, policyholder loan activity, policyholder surrenders and scheduled maturities. In addition, the results of our Runoff segment can significantly impact our operating performance, regulatory capital requirements, distributable earnings and liquidity.

We have discontinued sales of our individual and group variable annuities; however, we continue to service our existing block of business and accept additional deposits on existing contracts. Since then, equity market volatility has caused fluctuations in the results of our variable annuity products and regulatory capital requirements. In the future, equity and interest rate market performance and volatility could result in additional gains or losses in our variable annuity products although associated hedging activities are expected to partially mitigate these impacts. Volatility in the results of our variable annuity products can result in favorable or unfavorable impacts on earnings and statutory capital. In addition to the use of hedging activities to help mitigate impacts related to equity market volatility and interest rate risks, in the future, we may pursue reinsurance opportunities to further mitigate volatility in results and manage capital.

The results of our institutional products are impacted by scheduled maturities, as well as liquidity levels. However, we believe our liquidity planning and our asset-liability management will mitigate this risk. While we do not actively sell institutional products, we may periodically issue funding agreements for asset-liability matching purposes.

Several factors may impact the time period for these products to runoff including the specific policy types, economic conditions and management strategies.

Critical Accounting Estimates

The accounting estimates (including sensitivities) discussed in this section are those that we consider to be particularly critical to an understanding of our consolidated financial statements because their application places the most significant demands on our ability to judge the effect of inherently uncertain matters on our financial results. The sensitivities included in this section involve matters that are also inherently uncertain and involve the

121

exercise of significant judgment in selecting the factors and amounts used in the sensitivities. Small changes in the amounts used in the sensitivities or the use of different factors could result in materially different outcomes from those reflected in the sensitivities. For all of these accounting estimates, we caution that future events seldom develop exactly as estimated and management’s best estimates may require adjustment.

Valuation of fixed maturity securities. Our portfolio of fixed maturity securities comprises primarily investment grade securities, which are carried at fair value.

Estimates of fair values for fixed maturity securities are obtained primarily from industry-standard pricing methodologies utilizing market observable inputs. For our less liquid securities, such as our privately placed securities, we utilize independent market data to employ alternative valuation methods commonly used in the financial services industry to estimate fair value. Based on the market observability of the inputs used in estimating the fair value, the pricing level is assigned.

The following tables summarize the primary sources of data considered when determining fair value of each class of fixed maturity securities as of December 31:


	2014
(Amounts in millions)	Total		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
Fixed maturity securities:
Pricing services	$	56,000	$	—	$	56,000	$	—
Broker quotes		1,840		—		—		1,840
Internal models		4,607		—		683		3,924

Total fixed maturity securities	$	62,447	$	—	$	56,683	$	5,764


	2013
(Amounts in millions)	Total		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
Fixed maturity securities:
Pricing services	$	52,451	$	—	$	52,451	$	—
Broker quotes		1,488		—		—		1,488
Internal models		4,690		—		654		4,036

Total fixed maturity securities	$	58,629	$	—	$	53,105	$	5,524

See notes 2, 4 and 17 in our consolidated financial statements under “Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for additional information related to the valuation of fixed maturity securities and a description of the fair value measurement requirements and level assignments.

Other-than-temporary impairments on available-for-sale securities. As of each balance sheet date, we evaluate securities in an unrealized loss position for other-than-temporary impairments. For debt securities, we consider all available information relevant to the collectability of the security, including information about past events, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts, when developing the estimate of cash flows expected to be collected. For equity securities, we recognize an impairment charge in the period in which we determine that the security will not recover to book value within a reasonable period.

See notes 2 and 4 in our consolidated financial statements under “Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for additional information related to other-than-temporary impairments on available-for-sale securities.

Derivatives. We enter into freestanding derivative transactions primarily to manage the risk associated with variability in cash flows or changes in fair values related to our financial assets and liabilities. We also use derivative instruments to hedge certain currency exposures. Additionally, we purchase investment securities,

122

issue certain insurance policies and engage in certain reinsurance contracts that have embedded derivatives. The associated financial statement risk is the volatility in net income which can result from among other things: (i) changes in the fair value of derivatives not qualifying as accounting hedges; (ii) changes in the fair value of embedded derivatives required to be bifurcated from the related host contract; (iii) ineffectiveness of designated hedges; and (iv) counterparty default. Accounting for derivatives is complex, as evidenced by significant authoritative interpretations of the primary accounting standards which continue to evolve. See notes 2, 5 and 17 in our consolidated financial statements under “Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for an additional description of derivative instruments and fair value measurements of derivative instruments.

Deferred acquisition costs. DAC represents costs that are directly related to the successful acquisition of new and renewal insurance policies and investment contracts which are deferred and amortized over the estimated life of the related insurance policies. These costs primarily include commissions in excess of ultimate renewal commissions and underwriting and contract and policy issuance expenses for policies successfully acquired. DAC is subsequently amortized to expense in relation to the anticipated recognition of premiums or gross profits.

The amortization of DAC for traditional long-duration insurance products (including term life insurance, life-contingent structured settlements and immediate annuities and long-term care insurance) is determined as a level proportion of premium based on accepted actuarial methods and reasonable assumptions including related to investment returns, health care experience (including type of care and cost of care), policyholder persistency or lapses (i.e., the probability that a policy or contract will remain in-force from one period to the next), insured life expectancy or longevity, insured morbidity (i.e., frequency and severity of claim, including claim termination rates and benefit utilization rates) and expenses, established when the contract or policy is issued. U.S. GAAP requires that assumptions for these types of products not be modified (or unlocked) unless recoverability testing deems them to be inadequate. Amortization is adjusted each period to reflect actual lapses or terminations. Accordingly, we could experience accelerated amortization of DAC if policies lapse or terminate earlier than originally assumed.

Amortization of DAC for deferred annuity and universal life insurance contracts is based on expected gross profits. Expected gross profits are adjusted quarterly to reflect actual experience to date or for the unlocking of underlying key assumptions including related to interest rates, policyholder persistency or lapses, insured life expectancy or longevity and expenses. The estimation of expected gross profits is subject to change given the inherent uncertainty as to the underlying key assumptions employed and the long duration of our policy or contract liabilities. Changes in expected gross profits reflecting the unlocking of underlying key assumptions could result in a material increase or decrease in the amortization of DAC depending on the magnitude of the change in underlying assumptions. Significant factors that could result in a material increase or decrease in DAC amortization for these products include material changes in withdrawal or lapse rates, investment spreads or mortality assumptions. For the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, key assumptions were unlocked in our U.S. Life Insurance and Runoff segments to reflect our current expectation of future investment spreads, lapse rates and mortality.

The amortization of DAC for mortgage insurance is based on expected gross margins. Expected gross margins, defined as premiums less losses, are set based on assumptions for future persistency and loss development of the business. These assumptions are updated for actual experience to date or as our expectations of future experience are revised based on experience studies. Due to the inherent uncertainties in making assumptions about future events, materially different experience from expected results in persistency or loss development could result in a material increase or decrease to DAC amortization for this business. For the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, key assumptions were unlocked in our international mortgage insurance business to reflect our current expectation of future persistency and loss projections.

123

The following table sets forth the increase (decrease) in amortization of DAC related to unlocking of underlying key assumptions by segment for the years ended December 31:


(Amounts in millions)	2014			2013		2012
U.S. Life Insurance	$	4		$	21	$	(45	)
International Mortgage Insurance		—			1		4
Runoff		(9	)		1		4

Total	$	(5	)	$	23	$	(37	)

The DAC amortization methodology for our variable products (variable annuities and variable universal life insurance) includes a long-term average appreciation assumption of 7.5% to 8.0%. When actual returns vary from the expected 7.5% to 8.0%, we assume a reversion to the expected return over a three-year period.

We review DAC for recoverability at least annually. For deferred annuity and universal life insurance contracts, if the present value of estimated future gross profits is less than the unamortized DAC for a line of business, a charge to income is recorded for additional DAC amortization. For traditional long-duration and short-duration contracts, if the benefit reserves plus anticipated future premiums and interest income for a line of business are less than the current estimate of future benefits and expenses (including any unamortized DAC), a charge to income is recorded for additional DAC amortization or for increased benefit reserves. The evaluation of DAC recoverability is subject to inherent uncertainty and requires significant judgment and estimates to determine the present values of future premiums, estimated gross profits and expected losses and expenses of our businesses. As of December 31, 2014, we believe all of our businesses have sufficient future income where the related DAC is recoverable based on our best estimate assumptions.

Continued low interest rates have impacted the margins on our fixed immediate annuity products. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, we had margin of approximately $31 million and $78 million, respectively, on $6,204 million and $6,526 million, respectively, of net U.S. GAAP liability related to our fixed immediate annuity products. The risks we face include adverse variations in interest rates and/or mortality. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, we had DAC of $22 million and $28 million, respectively, related to our immediate annuity products. Adverse experience in one or both of these risks could result in the DAC associated with our immediate annuity products being no longer fully recoverable as well as the establishment of additional benefit reserves. As of December 31, 2014, for our immediate annuity products, 50 basis points lower interest rates and 2% lower mortality would result in margin reduction of approximately $23 million and $24 million, respectively. Margin reduction below zero results in a charge to current period earnings. Any favorable variation would result in additional margin in our DAC loss recognition analysis and would result in higher income recognition over the remaining duration of the in-force block. As of December 31, 2014, we believe all of our other businesses have sufficient future income where the related DAC would be recoverable under selected adverse variations in our assumptions. For a discussion of our long-term care insurance margins, see “—Insurance liabilities and reserves—Future policy benefits” below.

For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, there were no charges to income as a result of our DAC loss recognition testing. As part of a life block transaction in the third quarter of 2012, we recorded $39 million of additional DAC amortization to reflect loss recognition on certain term life insurance policies under a reinsurance treaty. See notes 2 and 6 in our consolidated financial statements under “Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for additional information related to DAC.

Present value of future profits. In conjunction with the acquisition of a block of insurance policies or investment contracts, a portion of the purchase price is assigned to the right to receive future gross profits arising from existing insurance and investment contracts. This intangible asset, called PVFP, represents the actuarially estimated present value of future cash flows from the acquired policies. PVFP is amortized, net of accreted interest, in a manner similar to the amortization of DAC.

124

We regularly review our assumptions and periodically test PVFP for recoverability in a manner similar to our treatment of DAC. During the fourth quarter of 2014, the loss recognition testing for our acquired block of long-term care insurance business resulted in a premium deficiency. As a result, we wrote off the entire PVFP balance for our long-term care insurance business of $6 million through amortization with a corresponding change to net unrealized investment gains (losses). The results of the test were primarily driven by changes in our expectations for future severity of claims, including higher utilization of available benefits and lower rates at which claims terminate. As of December 31, 2014, we believe all of our other businesses have sufficient future income where the related PVFP is recoverable based on our best estimate assumptions.

For the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, there were no charges to income as a result of our PVFP recoverability testing. See notes 2 and 7 in our consolidated financial statements under “Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for additional information related to PVFP.

Goodwill. Goodwill represents the excess of the amounts paid to acquire a business over the fair value of its net assets at the date of acquisition. Subsequent to acquisition, goodwill could become impaired if the fair value of a reporting unit as a whole were to decline below the value of its individually identifiable assets and liabilities. This may occur for various reasons, including changes in actual or expected income or cash flows of a reporting unit or generation of income by a reporting unit at a lower rate of return than similar businesses.

Under U.S. GAAP, we test the carrying value of goodwill for impairment at least annually at the “reporting unit” level, which is either an operating segment or a business one level below the operating segment. Under certain circumstances, interim impairment tests may be required if events occur or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying value.

The determination of fair value for our reporting units is primarily based on an income approach whereby we use discounted cash flows for each reporting unit. When available, and as appropriate, we use market approaches or other valuation techniques to corroborate discounted cash flow results. The discounted cash flow model used for each reporting unit is based on either operating income or statutory distributable income, depending on the reporting unit being valued.

For the operating income model, we determine fair value based on the present value of the most recent income projections for each reporting unit and calculate a terminal value utilizing a terminal growth rate. We primarily utilize the operating income model to determine fair value for our Canadian and Australian mortgage insurance reporting units. In addition to the operating income model, we also consider the valuation of our Canadian and Australian mortgage insurance subsidiaries’ publicly traded stock price in determining fair value for those reporting units. The significant assumptions in the operating income model include: income projections, which are dependent on new business production, customer behavior, operating expenses and market conditions; discount rate; and terminal growth rate.

For the statutory distributable income model, we determine fair value based on the present value of projected statutory net income and changes in required capital to determine distributable income for the respective reporting unit. We utilize the statutory distributable income model to determine fair value for our life and long-term care insurance reporting units. The significant assumptions in the statutory distributable income model include: required capital levels; income projections, which are dependent on mortality or morbidity, new business production growth, new business projection period, reinsurance, policyholder behavior and other specific industry and market conditions; and discount rate.

The cash flows used to determine fair value are dependent on a number of significant assumptions based on our historical experience, our expectations of future performance and expected economic environment. We determine the best estimate of our income projections based on current market conditions as well as our expectation of future market conditions. Our estimates of projected income are subject to change given the inherent uncertainty in predicting future results. Additionally, the discount rate used to determine fair value is

125

based on our judgment of the appropriate rate for each reporting unit based on the relative risk associated with the projected cash flows as well as our expectation of the discount rate that would be utilized by a hypothetical market participant.

During the third quarter of 2014, we completed our annual goodwill impairment analysis as of July 1, 2014. As a result of this analysis, we determined fair value was lower than book value for our life and long-term care insurance reporting units discussed further below. Our Canadian and Australian mortgage insurance reporting units had fair values in excess of their respective book values.

As part of our annual goodwill impairment testing, we noted that our long-term care and life insurance reporting units’ fair values were less than their respective book value. If fair value is lower than book value, the reporting unit’s fair value is allocated to assets and liabilities as if the reporting unit had been acquired in a business combination with the amount of goodwill being established representing the “implied goodwill” amount that is recoverable. If this “implied goodwill” exceeds the reporting unit’s recorded goodwill balance, goodwill is deemed recoverable. See below for additional details on the significant assumptions used in our goodwill impairment test for our long-term care and life insurance reporting units.

The key assumptions that impact our evaluation of implied goodwill for our long-term care and life insurance reporting units under our goodwill impairment assessment primarily relate to the valuation of new business. While the valuation of our in-force business is included in the fair value of the reporting unit, the in-force value does not contribute significant, incremental value to support goodwill. Based on a hypothetical acquisition under our goodwill impairment assessment, any difference in our current carrying value and the fair value of our in-force business would be associated with an intangible asset for PVFP and would not create additional implied goodwill. The valuation of new business is determined by utilizing several inputs such as discount rate, expected new business sales for the next 10 years, and expected new business profitability, which is primarily dependent on policyholder behavior assumptions, expected benefit payments, reinsurance, expected investment returns and targeted capital levels. The inclusion of 10 years of new business production is based on our experience of actuarial appraisals for life insurance companies where this is a common assumption. For our long-term care and life insurance reporting units, we utilized discount rates of 14% and 10%, respectively, based on our estimate of the weighted-average cost of capital that a hypothetical market participant would use in assessing the value of the businesses.

For the first half of 2014, overall market sales for the long-term care insurance industry declined approximately 30% as compared to the same period last year. During the third quarter of 2014, we introduced a new long-term care insurance product with higher premiums and lower maximum benefits, and anticipate that it will take time for this new product to gain momentum in our distribution channels. Given these trends, our annual sales projections included in our determination of fair value for our long-term care insurance reporting unit were lower than the prior year’s goodwill testing analysis. Based on the fair value of projected new business for our long-term care insurance reporting unit, we recorded a goodwill impairment of $200 million during the third quarter of 2014, with the remaining goodwill balance of $154 million deemed recoverable as of September 30, 2014 based on our determination of implied goodwill.

During the third quarter of 2014, in connection with our strategic planning process, we revisited our prior strategy of focusing on term life insurance, given the capital-intensive nature of the product and our revised capital plan. We are in the process of transitioning to higher return permanent products, including universal life insurance, indexed universal life insurance and linked-benefit products. Given this transition, our annual sales projections included in the determination of fair value for our life insurance reporting unit were significantly lower than sales levels expected in prior year’s goodwill testing analysis. Based on the fair value of projected new business for our life insurance reporting unit, we recorded a goodwill impairment of $350 million during the third quarter of 2014, with the remaining goodwill balance of $145 million deemed recoverable as of September 30, 2014 based on our determination of implied goodwill.

126

As a result of current market conditions, decreases in sales projections from negative rating actions taken in the fourth quarter of 2014 and distributor actions and overall uncertainty in those projections from market realities and potential strategic actions, we evaluated the impact of these factors on the fair value of our long-term care and life insurance reporting units in connection with the preparation of financial statements. Additionally, the completion of our loss recognition testing introduced risk of further rating downgrades that would significantly impact our ability to meet sales projections in our long-term care insurance business, as well as our life insurance business, where our primary new business value relates to our long-term care insurance and life linked-benefits product. These potential lower sales, combined with the factors noted above, bring uncertainty around whether a hypothetical market participant would be willing to pay for any new business associated with our long-term care and life insurance reporting units in a current market transaction. After consideration of the items noted above, we determined that it was more likely than not that the fair value of both our long-term care and life insurance reporting units was less than the carrying amount and that our remaining goodwill was not recoverable. As a result, we recorded a goodwill impairment of $154 million in our long-term care insurance business and $145 million in our life insurance business. These impairments reduced the goodwill balances of these businesses to zero. The uncertainty associated with the level and value of new business that a market participant would place on our long-term care and life insurance businesses resulted in the conclusion that the goodwill balances were no longer recoverable.

In the third quarter of 2012, considering current market conditions, including the market environment in Europe, lower trading multiples of European financial services companies and the impact of those conditions on our international protection reporting unit in a market transaction that may require a higher risk premium, we determined the fair value of the reporting unit was below book value and determined the goodwill associated with this reporting unit was not recoverable. Therefore, we recorded a goodwill impairment of $89 million for the write-off of all the goodwill associated with our international protection reporting unit in the third quarter of 2012.

Deteriorating or adverse market conditions for certain businesses may have a significant impact on the fair value of our reporting units and could result in future impairments of goodwill.

See notes 2 and 8 in our consolidated financial statements under “Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for additional information related to goodwill.

Insurance liabilities and reserves. We calculate and maintain reserves for the estimated future payment of claims to our policyholders and contractholders based on actuarial assumptions and in accordance with U.S. GAAP and industry practice. Many factors can affect these reserves, including, but not limited to: interest rates; investment returns and volatility; economic and social conditions, such as inflation, unemployment, home price appreciation or depreciation, and health care experience (including type of care and cost of care); policyholder persistency or lapses (i.e., the probability that a policy or contract will remain in-force from one period to the next); insured life expectancy or longevity; insured morbidity (i.e., frequency and severity of claim, including claim termination rates and benefit utilization rates); future premium increases; expenses; and doctrines of legal liability and damage awards in litigation. Because these factors are not known in advance, change over time, are difficult to accurately predict and are inherently uncertain, we cannot determine with precision the ultimate amounts we will pay for actual claims or the timing of those payments. Small changes in assumptions or small deviations of actual experience from assumptions can have, and in the past had, material impacts on our reserve levels, results of operations and financial condition.

Insurance reserves differ for long- and short-duration insurance policies. Measurement of reserves for long-duration insurance contracts (such as life insurance, annuities and long-term care insurance products) is based on approved actuarial methods, and includes assumptions about mortality, morbidity, lapses, interest rates and other factors. Short-duration contracts (such as lifestyle protection insurance) are accounted for based on actuarial estimates of the amount of loss inherent in that period’s claims, including losses incurred for which claims have not been reported. Short-duration contract loss estimates rely on actuarial observations of ultimate loss experience for similar historical events.

127

Future policy benefits

The liability for future policy benefits is equal to the present value of future benefits and expenses, less the present value of expected future net premiums based on assumptions including investment returns, health care experience (including type of care and cost of care), policyholder persistency or lapses (i.e., the probability that a policy or contract will remain in-force from one period to the next), insured life expectancy or longevity, insured morbidity (i.e., frequency and severity of claim, including claim termination rates and benefit utilization rates) and expenses. The liability for future policy benefits is reviewed at least annually as a part of our loss recognition testing using current assumptions based on the manner of acquiring, servicing and measuring the profitability of the insurance contracts. Loss recognition testing is generally performed at the line of business level, with acquired blocks and certain reinsured blocks tested separately. Changes in how we manage certain polices could require separate loss recognition testing and could result in future charges to income.

We perform loss recognition testing for the liability for future policy benefits for our long-term care insurance products in the aggregate, excluding our acquired block of long-term care insurance, which is tested separately. The results of our loss recognition test for our long-term care insurance products in 2014 were driven by changes to assumptions and methodologies primarily impacting claim termination rates, most significantly in later-duration claims, and benefit utilization rates. Claim termination rates refer to the expected rates at which claims end. Benefit utilization rates estimate how much of the available policy benefits are expected to be used. Changes to our claim termination rates and benefit utilization rates in our long-term care insurance business decreased our margin by approximately $5.4 billion. We also included an assumption for future anticipated rate actions which increased our margin by approximately $4.9 billion. Our assumption for future anticipated rate actions is based on our best estimate of the rate increases we expect given our claims cost expectations and uses our historical experience from rate increase approvals. In addition, we reviewed other assumptions, particularly related to claim frequency, lapse rates, morbidity, mortality improvement and expenses, and updated these assumptions as appropriate, which had a modestly favorable impact on our margin in the aggregate.

For our acquired block of long-term care insurance, we performed our loss recognition testing as of December 31, 2014 and determined that we had negative margin of $716 million. As a result, we wrote off the remaining PVFP balance of $6 million and increased our future policy benefit reserves by $710 million. The results of the test were driven by changes to assumptions and methodologies primarily impacting claim termination rates, most significantly in later-duration claims, and benefit utilization rates. Additionally, our discount rate assumption decreased from 7.65% in 2013 to 7.13% in 2014, mainly due to the additional lower-yielding assets needed to fund the increase in reserves during the year. We will measure future policy benefit reserves on our acquired block of long-term care insurance going forward using updated assumptions that are current as of December 31, 2014. These updated assumptions will be locked-in until such time as another premium deficiency exists. As of December 31, 2014, the liability for future policy benefits associated with our acquired block of long-term care insurance, including additional reserves established in the fourth quarter of 2014, was $2.8 billion.

The results of our loss recognition testing on our long-term care insurance block, excluding the acquired block, indicated that our DAC was recoverable and reserves were sufficient, with a margin of $2.3 billion as of December 31, 2014. Our loss recognition testing margin decreased $0.8 billion from December 31, 2013 mainly due to changes to assumptions and methodologies primarily impacting claim termination rates, most significantly in later-duration claims, and benefit utilization rates. We lowered our assumptions for claim termination rates, most significantly in later-duration claims. We assume a static discount rate that is in line with our current portfolio yield. Our discount rate assumption for our long-term care insurance block, excluding the acquired block, decreased from 5.57% in 2013 to 5.23% in 2014, mainly due to lower-yielding assets needed to fund the increase in reserves during the year. This rate represents our expected investment returns based on the portfolio of assets supporting the net U.S. GAAP liability as of the calculation date and, therefore, excluded the benefits of qualifying hedge gains that are not currently amortizing. Our positive margin for our long-term care insurance business, excluding the acquired block, was dependent on the assumptions we made on our ability to successfully implement our in-force management strategy involving premium increases or reduced benefits. In the fourth quarter of 2014, we began

128

including future rate actions in our loss recognition testing in addition to those rate actions that had already been filed and approved or awaiting regulatory approval. As of December 31, 2014, the liability for future policy benefits associated with our long-term care insurance block, excluding the acquired block, was $16.5 billion.

While we had margin of $2.3 billion on our long-term care insurance block, excluding the acquired block, loss recognition testing for this block indicated we had projected profits in earlier years followed by projected losses in the later years. As a result of this pattern of projected profits followed by projected losses, we are required to accrue additional future policy benefit reserves in the profitable years, currently expected to be through approximately 2030 (before accruing for the additional liability), by the amounts necessary to offset losses in later years. Given there were no profits in our long-term care insurance business in 2014, no accrual was recorded. The present value of projected losses was $1.2 billion as of December 31, 2014.

As of December 31, 2014, the impact on our long-term care insurance loss recognition testing margins for select sensitivities were as follows:


(Amounts in billions)	Acquired Block			Other Block (Excluding the Acquired Block)
2014 loss recognition testing margins	$	—		$	2.3
Sensitivities on 2014 loss recognition test margin:
5% relative increase in future claims costs		(0.2	)		(1.8	)
Discount rate decrease of 25 basis points		(0.1	)		(1.0	)
10% reduction in benefit of future in-force rate actions		—			(0.5	)

The margin impacts in the table above are each discrete and do not reflect the impact one factor may have on another. For example, the increases in claims costs do not include any offsetting impacts from potential future rate actions. Any such offset from rate actions would primarily impact our long-term care insurance block, excluding the acquired block. Our acquired block would not benefit significantly from additional rate actions as it is older, and therefore, there is a higher likelihood that adverse changes could result in additional losses on that block.

Any future adverse changes in our assumptions could result in both the DAC associated with our long-term care insurance products being no longer fully recoverable as well as the establishment of additional future policy benefit reserves. Any favorable changes would result in additional margin in our loss recognition test and higher income over the remaining duration of the in-force block. For our acquired block of long-term care insurance, the impacts of adverse changes in assumptions would be immediately reflected in net income (loss) as our margin for this block was zero after the reserve increase in the fourth quarter of 2014. For our long-term care insurance block, excluding the acquired block, any adverse changes in assumptions would only be reflected in net income (loss) to the extent the margin was reduced below zero.

Liability for policy and contract claims

The liability for policy and contract claims represents the amount needed to provide for the estimated ultimate cost of settling claims relating to insured events that have occurred on or before the end of the respective reporting period. The estimated liability includes requirements for future payments of: (a) claims that have been reported to the insurer; (b) claims related to insured events that have occurred but that have not been reported to the insurer as of the date the liability is estimated; and (c) claim adjustment expenses. Claim adjustment expenses include costs incurred in the claim settlement process such as legal fees and costs to record, process and adjust claims.

Our liability for policy and contract claims is reviewed regularly, with changes in our estimates of future claims recorded through net income (loss).

129

The following table sets forth our recorded liability for policy and contract claims by business as of December 31:


(Amounts in millions)	2014		2013
Long-term care insurance	$	6,216	$	4,999
U.S. mortgage insurance		1,180		1,482
International mortgage insurance		308		378
Life insurance		197		188
Lifestyle protection insurance		106		108
Fixed annuities		21		29
Runoff		15		20

Total liability for policy and contract claims	$	8,043	$	7,204

The liability for policy and contract claims, also known as claim reserves, for our long-term care insurance products represents the present value of the amount needed to provide for the estimated ultimate cost of settling claims relating to insured events that have occurred on or before the end of the respective reporting period. Key assumptions include investment returns, health care experience (including type of care and cost of care), policyholder persistency or lapses (i.e., the probability that a policy or contract will remain in-force from one period to the next), insured life expectancy or longevity, insured morbidity (i.e., frequency and severity of claim, including claim termination rates and benefit utilization rates) and expenses. Our discount rate assumption assumes a static discount rate in-line with our current portfolio yield.

During the third quarter of 2014, we completed a comprehensive review of our long-term care insurance claim reserves. This review was commenced as a result of adverse claims experience during the second quarter of 2014 and in connection with our regular review of our claim reserve assumptions during the third quarter of each year. As a result of this review, we made changes to our assumptions and methodologies relating to our long-term care insurance claim reserves primarily impacting claim termination rates, most significantly in later-duration claims, and benefit utilization rates, reflecting that claims are not terminating as quickly and claimants are utilizing more of their available benefits in aggregate than had previously been assumed in our reserve calculations. As a result of these changes, we increased our long-term care insurance claim reserves by $604 million, before reinsurance, during the third quarter of 2014. The changes in our assumptions relating to our long-term care insurance claim reserves also informed the review of and changes to assumptions and methodologies used in our fourth quarter of 2014 loss recognition testing, as discussed above.

Estimates of mortgage insurance reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses are based on notices of mortgage loan defaults and estimates of defaults that have been incurred but have not been reported by loan servicers, using assumptions developed based on past experience and our expectation of future development. These assumptions include claim rates for loans in default, the average amount paid for loans that result in a claim and an estimate of the number of loans in our delinquency inventory that will be rescinded or modified (collectively referred to as “loss mitigation actions”) based on the effects that such loss mitigation actions have had on our historical claim frequency rates, including an estimate for reinstatement of previously rescinded coverage. Each of these assumptions is established by management based on historical and expected experience. We have established processes, as well as contractual rights, to ensure we receive timely information from loan servicers to aid us in the establishment of our estimates. In addition, when we have obtained sufficient facts and circumstances through our investigative process, we have the unilateral right under our master policies and at law to rescind coverage ab initio on the underlying loan certificate as if coverage never existed. As is common accounting practice in the mortgage insurance industry and in acc