MGIC Investment 10-K 2008
Documents found in this filing:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Commission file number 1-10816
Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Title of Class:
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o No þ
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 o No þ
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 þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrants 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. þ
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 Act). Yes o No þ
State the aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant as of June 30, 2007: $4.6 billion*
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the Registrants classes of common stock as of February 29, 2008: 82,019,166
The following documents have been incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, as indicated:
* To the extent provided in the Item listed
This amendment to our 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K (the 2007 Form 10-K), initially filed on February 29, 2008, is being filed for the sole purpose of including certain information that we had planned to incorporate by reference from our Proxy Statement for our 2008 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the 2008 Proxy Statement). We are amending the 2007 Form 10-K so that this information can be incorporated by reference into a registration statement prior to the filing of our 2008 Proxy Statement. No information included in the 2007 Form 10-K is being changed by this amendment.
The information included under the caption titled Corporate Governance and Board Matters Audit Committee in our definitive Proxy Statement for our 2008 Annual Meeting of Shareholders is hereby incorporated by reference.
Certain information with respect to our directors as of February 29, 2008 is set forth below:
Certain information with respect to our executive officers appears at the end of Part I of this Form 10-K.
Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires our executive officers and directors, and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of our Common Stock (other than certain investment advisers with respect to shares held for third parties), to file reports of their beneficial ownership of our stock and changes in stock ownership with the SEC and the New York Stock Exchange. Based in part on statements by the persons subject to Section 16(a), we believe that all Section 16(a) forms were timely filed in 2007.
We have a Code of Business Conduct emphasizing our commitment to conducting our business in accordance with legal requirements and the highest ethical standards. The Code applies to all employees, including our executive officers, and specified portions are applicable to our directors. Among other things, the Code prohibits us from entering into transactions in which our employees or their immediate family members have a material financial interest (either directly or through a company with which the employee has a relationship) unless all of the following conditions are satisfied:
Under the Code, contracts and transactions involving a Senior Financial Officer, an executive officer or any related party may not be entered into prior to disclosure to, and approval of, our Audit Committee. Similarly, the Code requires Audit Committee approval of all transactions with any director or any related party, other than transactions involving the provision of goods or services in the ordinary course of business of
both parties. The Code requires our non-employee directors to disclose all transactions between us and parties related to the director, even if they are in the ordinary course of business.
Our Code is available online on our website and we intend to disclose on our website any waivers and amendments to our Code of Business Conduct that are required to be disclosed under Item 5.05 of Form 8-K.
Our Board has an Audit Committee. The members of the Audit Committee are Messrs. Lehman (Chairman), Kearney and McIntosh. The Boards determination that each of these directors meets all applicable independence requirements took account of Section 10A(m)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Board has determined that Mr. Lehman is an audit committee financial expert as that term is defined in Regulation S-K of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
This compensation discussion and analysis, or CD&A, is intended to provide information about our compensation objectives and policies for our chief executive officer, our chief financial officer and our three other most highly compensated executive officers that will place in perspective the information contained in the compensation and related tables that follow this discussion. This CD&A refers to the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee, which oversees our executive compensation program, as the Committee. Also, our chief executive officer, chief financial officer and the three other most highly compensated executive officers are collectively referred to as the named executive officers. The terms we and our mean the Company.
Over the years, our executive compensation program has been based on the following objectives.
How did the compensation we paid to our named executive officers for 2007 reflect these objectives?
The Companys net loss was $1.670 billion in 2007 compared to net income of $564.7 million in 2006. The Committee decided to pay bonuses for 2007 to officers of the Company, including the named executive officers, of approximately 25% of the amount paid to this group for 2006. The Committee reduced the bonuses for 2007 paid to the CEO and two other named executive officers by 75% from their bonuses for 2006, reduced the bonus of another named executive officer by 72.5% and reduced the bonus of the other named executive officer by 70%. The Committee decided to pay bonuses for 2007 to recognize the significant contribution made by the named executive officers and other officers in connection with the proposed merger with Radian Group Inc. and because their work achieved the Companys objectives in entering the merger agreement in February
2007, planning for the integration of the two companies and terminating the merger in September 2007, when market conditions had changed. The Committee believed these factors warranted bonuses at this level even though the Company did not meet certain of the financial goals (involving net income and return on equity) that the Committee had approved in January 2007. These goals are discussed under - Annual Bonus below.
Our 2007 financial statement expenses include 11 months of vesting for the restricted stock that vested in early 2008. The only restricted stock that vested in early 2008 was attributable to bonuses for 2004 and 2006 (the named executive officers had elected to take this portion of the bonus in restricted stock and have it paid over time), and to time vested shares granted in 2005. The average value of this restricted stock at vesting had declined by 74% compared to its value when it was awarded. There were no expenses in our 2007 financial statements for any restricted stock that was scheduled to vest in early 2008 but did not. There was no vesting in early 2008 on account of our 2007 performance for any restricted stock granted since 2003 that was scheduled to vest based on the achievement of any earnings per share goals. There was also no vesting in early 2008 for any restricted stock granted in 2006 and 2007 that was scheduled to vest based on the achievement of return on equity goals.
The options that vested in early 2008 had an average exercise price of $56.59 per share. At vesting, the price of our stock (averaged to reflect the different vesting dates) was $16.56.
On average for the named executive officers, restricted equity awarded in January 2007 had a value at the time of the award (assuming all of such equity would vest) of about 80% of the executives total compensation for 2007. Over the years, this compensation objective had a substantial effect on our named executive officers, including through the decrease in the value of their restricted equity and stock options. The following table shows the decrease, from January 29, 2007 to January 29, 2008, in value of the restricted equity and stock options that they owned on January 29, 2007, the day after the last vesting in 2007 occurred:
A discussion of the benchmarking we did is contained under - Benchmarking below.
Our perks remained limited in 2007 and are discussed under Components of our Executive Compensation Program Perquisites below.
Our retirement benefits met this objective in 2007 and are discussed under - Pension Plan below.
To provide a framework for evaluating compensation levels against market practices, the Committees compensation consultant periodically provides information from SEC filings for a comparison group of publicly traded companies and we periodically review various published compensation surveys. For a number of years the independent compensation consultant to the Committee has been Frederic W. Cook & Co., which we refer to as FWC. Aside from its role as the Committees independent consultant, FWC provides no services to the Company.
In October 2006, FWC provided the Committee with a report on the primary components of our executive compensation program (base salary, annual bonus and longer-term incentives). The October 2006 report analyzed our compensation program against a comparison group of companies. The comparison companies were the ones that had been used in a report to the Committee prepared by FWC in October 2004, other than the elimination of companies that were acquired since the October 2004 report. The comparison companies were jointly selected by FWC and management, and approved by the Committee.
The comparison group used in the October 2006 report consisted of the following companies:
The analysis of our executive compensation by FWC in 2006 involved the overall comparison group as well as a subgroup comprised of five companies Ambac, MBIA, Old Republic International, PMI Group and Radian Group, which we refer to as the surety comparison group and are either our direct competitors or are financial guaranty insurers.
The companies in our overall comparison group include our direct competitors, financial guaranty insurers and other financial services companies that are believed to be potential competitors for executive talent. Market capitalization was used as a proxy for the complexity of the operations of the companies in the overall comparison group to help determine whether they were appropriate benchmarks. Between the October 2004 report and the October 2006 report, our market capitalization decreased while the median market capitalization of the overall comparison group and the surety comparison group increased. Our market capitalization in the October 2006 report was approximately at the 25th percentile of the overall comparison group and was somewhat higher than the median of the surety comparison group.
The October 2006 report concluded that our total compensation for executive officers was at market (median) levels. The Committee had made significant changes to our executive compensation program in 2005 (increasing bonus opportunities and awards of restricted stock) to respond to the conclusions of the October 2004 report (which was consistent with the findings of similar reports completed in prior years) that total compensation for our executive officers was substantially below the median of the overall comparison group. The October 2006 report found that our CEOs total compensation was consistent with the medians for the overall comparison group and the surety comparison group, and that the total compensation of the other named executive officers was below the median of the overall comparison group and above the median of the surety comparison group. Even though our market capitalization was lower than the median market capitalization of
the overall comparison group, the Committee did not believe it was appropriate to change the design of a program that had been only recently developed, especially when our market capitalization still exceeded the market capitalization of the surety comparison group. As a result, the Committee did not make any changes for 2007 to the design of our executive compensation program in response to the October 2006 report.
In July 2007, in connection with our then proposed merger with Radian Group Inc., FWC provided another report to the Committee covering the compensation of our named executive officers. This report used the same overall comparison group and the same surety comparison group and concluded that in the context of the proposed merger no significant adjustments to our compensation program for our named executive officers were needed.
Components of our Executive Compensation Program
Our executive compensation program is designed to make grants of restricted equity the largest portion of total compensation of our named executive officers. We emphasize this component of our executive compensation program because it aligns executives interests with those of shareholders, and links compensation to performance through stock price and, for about 57% of grants made in recent years, achievement of corporate performance goals related to EPS.
In 2007, we awarded restricted equity that vests based on achievement of a performance goal related to EPS (which we refer to as EPS-vested awards) as well as restricted equity that vests based on continued employment and the satisfaction of an ROE target of 1% (which we refer to as service and ROE-vested awards). See footnote 5 to the 2007 Grants of Plan-Based Awards table below for a description of the vesting of the awards subject to EPS goals, as well as the five-year EPS goal established by the Committee in 2007. EPS-vested restricted equity awarded in 2007 is not entitled to receive dividends. Service and ROE-vested awards are entitled to receive dividends.
In view of our net loss for 2007, none of the EPS-vested stock and ROE-vested stock awards granted in 2007 vested on their scheduled vesting date in February 2008. Equivalent awards made in 2006 that were scheduled to vest in January 2008 also did not vest nor was there any vesting in January 2008 for EPS-vested awards made in 2003, 2004 and 2005. The portion of the service and ROE-vested awards made in 2006 and 2007 that did not vest have been forfeited. The portion of the 2003 EPS-vested award that did not vest has also been forfeited. The portion of the 2004 - 2007 EPS-vested awards that did not vest in February 2008 is eligible to vest in the future but we believe it is likely that a substantial amount of these awards will never vest and will be forfeited.
Annual bonuses are the next most significant portion of compensation because all of our named executive officers have maximum bonus potentials that substantially exceed their base salaries (three times base salary in the case of the CEO and two and one-quarter times base salary in the case of the other named executive officers). We have weighted bonus potentials more heavily than base salaries because bonuses are more directly linked to company and individual performance.
Our bonus framework for 2007 provided that bonuses would be determined in the discretion of the Committee taking account of, among other things, our ROE, pre-established financial goals, the business environment in which we operated and individual officer performance. The Committee believes that a discretionary bonus plan is appropriate because objective, short-term financial measures may not fully reflect the underlying reasons for our performance and will not reflect individual officer performance. We also had a formula based on pre-tax earnings that establishes a maximum bonus for executive officers under this bonus framework. This formula is described under Summary of Selected Components of our Executive Compensation Program Annual Bonus below.
In awarding bonuses for the last several years, the Committee considered our ROE and pre-established financial goals given its view that there should be a strong link between our performance and compensation. Our 2007 financial goals and 2007 performance were:
The Committee determined it would weight subjective factors heavily in determining bonuses for 2007 and that it would not use the results of the formula to determine the maximum bonus payable to named executive officers because the formula would result in no bonuses being paid. The Committee approved a bonus pool for the named executive officers and other officers of the company that was approximately 25% of the bonus pool paid to this group for 2006. It asked Mr. Culver to give the Committee a schedule of how the pool should be allocated to each bonus recipient, which the Committee reviewed and approved. The CEO and two other named executive officers received bonuses for 2007 at 25% of the amount of their bonuses for 2006, another named executive officer received bonuses for 2007 at 27.5% of his 2006 bonus and the other named executive officer received bonuses for 2007 at 30% of his bonus. The Committee decided to pay bonuses for 2007 to recognize the significant contribution made by the named executive officers and other officers in connection with the proposed merger with Radian Group Inc. and because their work achieved the Companys objectives in entering the merger agreement in February 2007, planning for the integration of the two companies and terminating the merger in September 2007, when market conditions had changed.
For a number of years, all of our officers have been able to elect to receive restricted stock vesting in one year through continued employment for up to one-third of their bonus amounts (base restricted stock). If base restricted stock is elected, the executive officer will be awarded one and one-half shares of restricted stock vesting in three years subject to continued employment for each share of base restricted stock. Elections to receive restricted stock are made in the year before the year in which the bonus is awarded. Officers were not given the opportunity to make an election in 2007 because at the time management did not anticipate that any bonuses would be paid for 2007. As a result, no restricted stock was issued in connection with the bonuses for 2007.
Our philosophy is to target base salary range midpoints for our executive officers near the median levels compared to their counterparts at a comparison group of companies. In general, any change to Mr. Culvers salary is based upon the Committees subjective evaluation of Mr. Culvers performance, as well as the evaluation of each director who is not on the Committee. All of these evaluations are communicated to the Committee Chairman through a CEO evaluation survey completed by each director. The subjects covered by the evaluation included financial results, leadership, strategic planning, succession planning, external relationships and communications and relations with the Board. Each year, Mr. Culver recommends specific changes for our other named executive officers. These recommendations are based on his subjective evaluation of each executive officers performance, including his perception of their contributions to the Company. Based on Mr. Culvers recommendations, subject to the Committees independent judgment regarding the officers performance (both the Committee and the Board have regular contact not only with the CEO, but also with each of the other named executive officers) the Committee approves changes in salaries for these officers.
In January 2007, Mr. Culvers annual base salary was increased to $830,000 from $800,000 and our other named executive officers salaries were also increased by approximately 4%. These salary increases were consistent with salary increases given to our employees generally.
Our executive compensation program includes a qualified pension plan and a supplemental executive retirement plan. These plans are offered because we believe that they are an important element of a competitive compensation program. We also offer a 401(k) plan to which we make contributions.
The perks we provide total less than $10,000 for each of our named executive officers. The perks are club dues and expenses, the cost of an annual or bi-annual medical examination, a covered parking space at our headquarters and aircraft travel, accommodation and related expenses of family members who accompany executives to business-related events at which they are not expected to attend. We believe our perks are very modest compared to what we perceive has been common past practice for larger companies.
Under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, certain compensation in excess of $1 million paid during a year to any of the executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table for that year is not deductible. Had any named executive officer exercised any stock options in 2007, the deduction for compensation arising from the exercise of stock options should not have been subject to such limit. A portion of Mr. Culvers bonus for 2007 was non-deductible as a result of the application of Section 162(m). The Committee took this fact into account in determining the amount of the bonus, and concluded that the effect on the Company of the lost deduction was immaterial.
Beginning with awards of restricted equity made in January 2007, restricted equity awarded to our officers who are required to report to the SEC their transactions in our securities (this group consists of our executive officers, including the named executive officers, our chief accounting officer, chief investment officer and chief information officer) must not be sold for one year after vesting. Shares received on exercise of the last stock options granted (in January 2004) also must not be sold for one year after exercise. The number of shares that must not be sold is the lower of 25% of the shares that vested (or in the case of this option, 25% of the shares for which the option was exercised) and 50% of the shares that were received after taking account of shares withheld to cover taxes. The holding period ends before one year if the officer is no longer required to report transactions to the SEC. The holding period does not apply to involuntary transactions, such as would occur in a merger, and for certain other dispositions.
We have stock ownership guidelines for executive officers. Stock ownership under these guidelines is a multiple of the executives base salary. For our CEO, the stock ownership guideline is five times base salary. For the other named executive officers, the guideline is four times base salary and for other executive officers, the guideline is three times base salary. During 2007, stock owned consisted of shares owned outright by the executive (including shares in the executives account in our 401(k) plan and unvested restricted stock and RSUs) and the difference between the market value of stock underlying vested stock options and the exercise price of those options. For purposes of the ownership guidelines, equity is valued using the average closing price during the year. As of December 31, 2007, each of the named executive officers met these stock ownership guidelines. While we have no policies on hedging economic risk, we strongly discourage so-called 10b5-1 plans, which make lawful sales of our equity securities by executive officers if one or more predefined parameters are satisfied even when at the time of the sale the insider is aware of unfavorable material non-public information.
Each of our named executive officers is a party to a Key Executive Employment and Severance Agreement with us (a KEESA) described in the section titled Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control Change in Control Agreements below. No executive officer has an employment or severance agreement, other than these agreements. Our KEESAs provide for the payment of the lump sum termination payment only after both a change in control and a specified employment termination (a double trigger agreement). We adopted this approach, rather than providing for such payment after a change in control and a voluntary employment termination by the executive (a single trigger agreement), because we believe that double trigger agreements provide executives with adequate employment protection and reduce the potential costs associated with these agreements to an acquirer.
The KEESAs and our equity award agreements provide that all restricted equity and unvested stock options become fully vested at the date of a change in control. Once vested, a holder of an award is entitled to retain it even if he voluntarily leaves employment (although a vested stock option may expire because of employment termination as soon as 30 days after employment ends).
Under the Committees clawback policy the Company shall seek to recover, to the extent the Committee deems appropriate, from any executive officer and the chief accounting officer, certain incentive compensation if a subsequent financial restatement shows that such compensation should not have been paid. The clawback policy applies to restricted equity that vests upon the achievement of a Company performance target. As an alternative to seeking recovery, the Committee may require the forfeiture of future compensation. Beginning in January 2007, our restricted stock agreements require, to the extent the Committee deems appropriate, our executive officers to repay the difference between the amount of after-tax income that was originally recognized from restricted equity that vested based on achievement of a performance goal related to EPS and the amount that would have been recognized had the restatement been in effect, plus the value of any tax deduction on account of the repayment.
The Committee has not adjusted executive officers future compensation based upon amounts realized pursuant to previous equity awards.
The Committees practice for many years has been to make equity awards and approve new salaries and bonuses at its meeting in late January, which has followed our traditional early to mid-January announcement of earnings for the prior year. Consistent with this practice, the Committee made equity awards in 2008 in late February after our mid-February earnings announcement.
Among its other duties, the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee assists the oversight by the Board of Directors of MGIC Investment Corporations executive compensation program, including approving corporate goals relating to compensation for the CEO and senior managers, evaluating the performance of the CEO and determining the CEOs annual compensation and approving compensation for MGIC Investment Corporations other senior executives.
The Committee reviewed and discussed with management the foregoing Compensation Discussion and Analysis. Based upon this review and discussion, the Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in MGIC Investment Corporations proxy statement for its 2008 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.
Members of the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee:
Kenneth M. Jastrow, II, Chairman
Thomas M. Hagerty
Leslie M. Muma
Messrs. Jastrow (Chairman), Hagerty and Muma served on the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee during 2007. No member of the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee during 2007 (1) has ever been one of our officers or employees nor (2) had any relationship with us during 2007 that would require disclosure under Item 404 of the SECs Regulation S-K.
During 2007, none of our executive officers served as a director or member of the compensation committee (or other board committee performing equivalent functions or, in the absence of any such committee, the entire board of directors) of any other entity, one of whose executive officers is or has been a director of ours or a member of our Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee.
The following tables provide information about the compensation of our named executive officers.
SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE
The following table summarizes the compensation earned by or paid to our named executive officers in 2006 and 2007. Following the table is a summary of selected components of our executive compensation program. Other tables that follow provide more detail about the specific types of compensation.
The following is a description of our annual bonus program and pension plan. This discussion supplements the discussion included in the section titled Compensation Discussion and Analysis above.
Our bonus framework for 2006 and 2007 provided that bonuses will be determined in the discretion of the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee taking account of:
The ROE criteria and related bonus opportunities (expressed as a multiple of base salary) were:
During 2006 and 2007, we also had a formula under which the maximum annual bonus award under the bonus framework was 0.75% of the sum of MGICs pre-tax income, excluding extraordinary items and realized gains and the pre-tax contribution of MGICs joint ventures. As discussed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the Committee determined that for 2007 it would not use the results of the formula because it would result in no bonuses being paid to the named executive officers for 2007.
Beginning with bonuses for 2001 performance, our executive officers could elect to receive restricted stock vesting in one year through continued employment for up to one-third of their bonus amounts (base restricted stock). If base restricted stock was elected, the executive officer was also awarded one and one-half shares of restricted stock vesting in three years through continued employment for each share of base restricted stock. The base restricted stock shares vest on or about the first anniversary of the grant date through continued employment and the matching shares vest on or about the third anniversary of the grant date through continued employment. Dividends are paid on these restricted shares prior to vesting. The matching restricted stock does not count against the bonus maximum in the ROE criteria table. The Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee adopted the base and matching restricted stock portion of our executive compensation program to encourage senior executives to subject to equity risk compensation that would otherwise be paid in cash. Each of our named executive officers elected to receive one-third of his 2006 bonuses in restricted stock pursuant to this program. In accordance with the rules of the SEC, however, the Summary Compensation Table shows the amount of the foregone cash bonus that was paid in restricted stock in the column that shows bonuses paid in cash. Also, because the restricted stock awarded under this program related to 2006 bonuses was awarded in January 2007, it is shown in the 2007 Grants of Plan-Based Awards table. This program was not offered to officers for 2007 bonuses because at the time management did not anticipate that any bonuses would be paid for 2007.
We maintain a Pension Plan for the benefit of substantially all of our employees and a Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (Supplemental Plan) for designated employees, including executive officers. The Supplemental Plan provides benefits that cannot be provided by the Pension Plan because of limitations in the Internal Revenue Code on benefits that can be provided by a qualified pension plan, such as our Pension Plan.
Under the Pension Plan and the Supplemental Plan taken together, each executive officer earns an annual pension credit for each year of employment equal to 2% of the officers eligible compensation for that year. Eligible compensation is limited to salaries, commissions, wages, cash bonuses, the portion of cash bonuses deferred and converted to restricted equity bonuses (see - Annual Bonus above) and overtime pay. At retirement, the annual pension credits are added together to determine the employees accrued pension benefit. However, the annual pension credits for service prior to 1998 for each employee with at least five years of vested service on January 1, 1998 will generally be equal to 2% of the employees average eligible compensation for the five years ended December 31, 1997. Eligible employees with credited service for employment prior to October 31, 1985 also receive a past service benefit, which is generally equal to the difference between the amount of pension the employee would have been entitled to receive for service prior to October 31, 1985 under the terms of a prior plan had such plan continued, and the amount the employee is actually entitled to receive under an annuity contract purchased when the prior plan was terminated. Retirement benefits vest on the basis of a graduated schedule over a seven-year period of service. Full pension benefits are payable upon retirement at or after age 65 (age 62 if the employee has completed at least seven years of service), and reduced benefits are payable beginning at age 55.
2007 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS
The following table shows the grants of plan based awards to our named executive officers in 2007.
OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT 2007 FISCAL YEAR-END
The following table shows our named executive officers equity awards outstanding on December 31, 2007.
Also includes the number of unvested restricted shares awarded in connection with officers election to defer a portion of his annual cash bonus for 2004, 2005 and 2006 in the amounts set forth in the following table. See - Summary of Selected Components of our Executive Compensation Program Annual Bonus above for a discussion of the terms of these grants.
See Compensation Discussion and Analysis Components of our Executive Compensation Program Longer-Term Restricted Equity above.
The following table shows the option exercise and stock vesting of grants of plan based awards to our named executive officers in 2007.
The following table shows the present value of accrued pension plan benefits for our named executive officers as of December 31, 2007.
Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control
The following table summarizes the estimated value of payments to each of the named executive officers assuming the triggering event or events indicated occurred on December 31, 2007.
Each of our named executive officers is a party to a Key Executive Employment and Severance Agreement with us (a KEESA). If a change in control occurs and the executives employment is terminated within three years after the change in control (this three-year period is referred to as the employment period), other than for cause or disability, or if the executive terminates his employment for good reason, the executive is entitled to a lump sum termination payment equal to twice the sum of his annual base salary, his maximum bonus award and an amount for pension accruals and profit sharing and matching contributions.
Under the KEESAs, a change in control generally would occur upon the acquisition by certain unrelated persons of 50% or more of our common stock; an exogenous change in the majority of our Board of Directors; certain mergers, consolidations or share exchanges or related share issuances; or our sale or disposition of all or substantially all of our assets. We would have cause to terminate an executive under a KEESA if the executive were intentionally to engage in certain bad faith conduct causing demonstrable and serious financial injury to us; to be convicted of certain felonies; or to willfully, unreasonably and continuously refuse to perform his or her existing duties or responsibilities. An executive would have good reason under his or her KEESA if we were to breach the terms of the KEESA; make certain changes to the executives position or working conditions; or fail to obtain a successors agreement to assume the KEESA.
If the employment termination occurs during the employment period but more than three months after the change in control, the termination payment is reduced. The KEESAs require that, for a period of twelve months after a termination for which a payment is required, the executive not compete with us unless approved in advance in writing by our Board of Directors. The KEESAs also impose confidentiality obligations on our executives that have signed them.
While the executive is employed during the employment period, the executive is entitled to a base salary no less than the base salary in effect prior to the change in control and to a bonus opportunity of no less than 75% of the maximum bonus opportunity in effect prior to the change in control. The executive is also entitled to participate in medical and other specified benefits. The executive is also entitled to certain other benefits and the continuation of medical and other specified employee benefits during the remainder of the employment period.
We have entered into KEESAs with 41 other officers, substantially all of which have a termination payment multiple of one.
If the excise tax under Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code would apply to the benefits provided under the KEESA, the executive is entitled to receive a payment so that he is placed in the same position as if the excise tax did not apply.
In general, our restricted equity awards are forfeited upon a termination of employment, other than as a result of the officers death (in which case the entire award vests). If employment termination occurs after age 62 for an officer who has been employed by us for at least seven years, awards granted at least one year prior to the date of the employment termination will continue to vest if the officer enters into a non-competition agreement with us.
As noted under - Compensation and Related Tables Summary of Selected Components of our Executive Compensation Program Pension Plan above, we have a Pension Plan and Supplemental Plan that
provide post-retirement benefits. If the employment of our named executive officers terminated effective December 31, 2007, the annual amounts payable to them at age 62 under these plans would have been: Mr. Culver $402,024; Mr. Lauer $203,628; Mr. Sinks $160,524; Mr. Pierzchalski $204,000; and Mr. Lane $153,024. As of December 31, 2007, Mr. Lauer was eligible to receive this level of benefits because he was over the age of 62 and had more than seven years tenure. As of December 31, 2007, Messrs. Culver, Pierzchalski and Lane were eligible to receive reduced benefits under these plans immediately upon retirement because they were over the age of 55 and had more than seven years tenure. As a result, if their employment had been terminated effective December 31, 2007, the annual amounts payable to them under our Pension Plan had they elected to begin receiving annual payments immediately would have been Mr. Culver $247,245; Mr. Pierzchalski $120,360; and Mr. Lane $122,419.
Although we do not have a written severance policy for terminations of employment unrelated to a change in control, we have historically negotiated severance arrangements with officers whose employment we terminate without cause. The amount that we have paid has varied based upon the officers tenure and position.
Compensation Of Directors
Under our Corporate Governance Guidelines, compensation of non-employee directors is reviewed periodically by the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee. Mr. Culver is our CEO and receives no additional compensation for service as a director and he is not eligible to participate in any of the following programs or plans.
Annual and Meeting Fees: Non-employee directors are paid an annual retainer of $32,000, plus $3,000 for each Board meeting attended, and $2,000 for all Committee meetings attended on any one day. The Chairperson of the Audit Committee receives an additional $10,000 fee annually and Chairpersons of other Board committees receive an additional $5,000 fee annually. Non-Chairperson directors who are members of the Audit Committee receive an additional $5,000 fee annually. Subject to certain limits, we reimburse directors, and for meetings not held on our premises, their spouses, for travel, lodging and related expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and committee meetings.
Deferred Compensation Plan: Non-employee directors may elect to defer payment of all or part of the annual and meeting fees until the directors death, disability, termination of service as a director or to another date specified by the director. A director who participates in this plan may elect to have his or her deferred compensation account either credited quarterly with interest accrued at an annual rate equal to the six-month U.S. Treasury Bill rate determined at the closest preceding January 1 and July 1 of each year, or to have the fees deferred during a quarter translated into share units. Each share unit is equal in value to one share of our Common Stock and is ultimately distributed only in cash. If a director defers fees into share units, dividend equivalents in the form of additional share units are credited to the directors account as of the date of payment of cash dividends on our Common Stock.
Deposit Share Program: Under the Deposit Share Program, which is offered to directors under our 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, a non-employee director may purchase shares of Common Stock from us at fair market value which are then held by us. The amount that may be used to purchase shares cannot exceed the directors annual and meeting fees for the preceding year. We match each of these shares with one and one-half shares of restricted stock or, at the directors option, RSUs. A director who deferred annual and meeting fees from the prior year into share units under the plan described above may reduce the amount needed to purchase Common Stock by the amount so deferred. For matching purposes, the amount so deferred is treated as if shares had been purchased and one and one-half shares of restricted stock or RSUs are awarded for each such share.
Since 2005, the restricted stock and RSUs awarded under the program vest one year after the award. Previously, vesting occurred on the third anniversary of the award unless a director chose a later date. Except for gifts to family members, the restricted stock may not be transferred prior to vesting; RSUs are not
transferable. Shares that have not vested when a director leaves the Board are forfeited, except in the case of the directors death or certain events specified in the agreement relating to the restricted stock and RSUs. The Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee may waive the forfeiture. All shares of restricted stock and RSUs vest on the directors death and will immediately become vested upon a change in control. RSUs that have vested are settled in Common Stock when the director is no longer a Board member. The director receives a cash payment equivalent to the dividend corresponding to the number of shares underlying the directors RSUs outstanding on the record date for Common Stock dividends.
RSU Award Program: Directors who are not our employees are awarded annually RSUs under the 2002 Stock Incentive Plan. In January 2006 and 2007 and February 2008, these directors were each awarded RSUs representing 850 shares of Common Stock. The RSUs vest on or about the first anniversary of the award date, or upon the earlier death of the director. RSUs that have vested will be settled in Common Stock when the director is no longer a Board member. The director receives a cash payment equivalent to the dividend corresponding to the number of shares underlying the directors RSUs outstanding on the record date for Common Stock dividends.
Former Restricted Stock Plan: Non-employee directors elected to the Board before 1997 were each awarded, on a one-time basis, 2,000 shares of Common Stock under our 1993 Restricted Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors. The shares are restricted from transfer until the director ceases to be a director by reason of death, disability or retirement, and are forfeited if the director leaves the Board for another reason unless the forfeiture is waived by the plan administrator. In 1997, the Board decided that no new awards of Common Stock would be made under the plan.
Equity Ownership Guidelines: The Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee has adopted equity ownership guidelines for directors under which each member of the Board is expected to own our equity having a value equal to five times the annual fee for serving on the Board. See Annual and Meeting Fees. Equity owned consists of shares owned outright by the director, restricted equity and all vested and unvested share units under the Deferred Compensation Plan described above. For purposes of the ownership guidelines, equity is valued using the average closing price during the year. Directors are expected to achieve the ownership guideline within five years after joining the Board. As of December 31, 2007, all directors met their required ownership under the guidelines.
Other: We also pay premiums for directors and officers liability insurance under which the directors are insureds.
The following table shows the compensation paid to each person who was one of our directors in 2007. Mr. Culver, our CEO, is also a director but receives no compensation for service as a director.
All of the compensation expense for stock awards that we recognized in 2007 resulted from stock expensed at values between $60.35 and $66.18 per share. The closing price of our stock at the end of the 2007 was $22.43.
In 2007, our directors were granted three types of equity awards. First, some directors elected to defer their cash fees in the manner described under Deferred Compensation Plan above. The awards that they received under such plan and the value of the awards are set forth in footnote 1 and the column titled Fees Earned or Paid in Cash, respectively. Second, each director was awarded RSUs representing 850 shares of Common Stock and with a value (as of the grant date) of $52,896 pursuant to our RSU Award Program described under RSU Award Program above. Finally, our directors were awarded restricted shares or RSUs granted pursuant to our Deposit Share Program as follows, with each of the values representing the value as of the grant date: Mr. Abbott 1,491 RSUs valued at $89,982; Mr. Case 1,615 shares of restricted stock valued at $97,465; Mr. Engelman 1,540 shares of restricted stock valued at $92,939; Mr. Hagerty 1,491 RSUs valued at $89,982; Mr. Jastrow 1,615 RSUs valued at $97,465; Mr. Kearney 2,086 RSUs valued at $125,890; Mr. McIntosh 2,062 shares of restricted stock valued at $124,442; Mr. Muma 1,491 RSUs valued at $89,982; and Mr. Nicolaisen 273 RSUs valued at $16,476. The following directors purchased at fair market value shares of our Common Stock under the Deposit Share Program in order to receive an award of restricted stock: Mr. Abbott 994 shares for $59,988; Mr. Engelman 1,027 shares for $61,979; Mr. McIntosh 1,375 shares for $82,981; and Mr. Nicolaisen 182 shares for $10,984.
At December 31, 2007, the outstanding stock awards to our directors that have either not vested or have vested but have not been released were: Mr. Abbott 5,691; Mr. Case 15,338; Mr. Engelman 5,740; Mr. Hagerty 13,336; Mr. Jastrow 29,915; Mr. Kearney 19,161; Mr. Lehman 3,571; Mr. McIntosh 6,262; Mr. Muma 20,677; and Mr. Nicolaisen 3,924.
The following table identifies holders of more than 5% of the outstanding shares of our Common Stock as of December 31, 2007, based on information filed with the SEC, or a later date if a subsequent SEC filing was made before February 29, 2008. The table also shows the amount of our Common Stock beneficially owned by our named executive officers and all directors and named executive officers as a group. Unless otherwise noted, the parties listed in the table have sole voting and investment power over their shares, and information regarding the directors and named executive officers is given as of February 29, 2008.
Stock Incentive Plans
The table below sets forth certain information, as of December 31, 2007, about options outstanding under our 1991 Stock Incentive Plan (the 1991 Plan) and our 2002 Stock Incentive Plan (the 2002 Plan). Other than under these plans, no options, warrants or rights were outstanding at that date under any compensation plan or individual compensation arrangement with us. We have no compensation plan under which our equity securities may be issued that has not been approved by shareholders. Share units issued under the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, which have no voting power and can be settled only in cash, are not considered to be equity securities for this purpose.
Our Corporate Governance Guidelines regarding director independence provide that a director is not independent if the director has any specified disqualifying relationship with us. The disqualifying relationships are equivalent to those of the independence rules of the New York Stock Exchange, except that our disqualification for board interlocks is more stringent than under the NYSE rules. Also, for a director to be independent under the Guidelines, the director may not have any material relationship with us. For purposes of determining whether a disqualifying or material relationship exists, we consider relationships with MGIC Investment Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines are available on our website (www.mgic.com) under the Investor; About MGIC; Corporate Governance links.
In February 2008, the Board determined that all of our directors are independent under the Guidelines and the NYSE rules, except for Mr. Culver, our CEO. The Board made its determination by considering that no disqualifying relationships existed during the periods specified under the Guidelines and the NYSE rules. To determine that there were no material relationships, the Board applied categorical standards that it had adopted. All independent directors met these standards. Under these standards, a director is not independent if payments under transactions between us and a company of which the director is an executive officer or 10%
or greater owner exceeded the greater of $1 million or 1% of the other companys gross revenues. Payments made to and payments made by us are considered separately, and this quantitative threshold is applied to transactions that occurred in the three most recent fiscal years of the other company. Also under these standards, a director is not independent if during our last three fiscal years the director:
In making its independence determinations, the Board considered our provision of contract underwriting services to American Security Mortgage Corp. (of which Mr. Abbott is the Chairman and a principal) and mortgage insurance premiums received by us on loans for which American Security Mortgage Corp. was the original insured. These transactions were below the quantitative threshold noted above and were entered into in the ordinary course of both our and American Security Mortgage Corp.s business. Until the end of 2007, Mr. Jastrow was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Temple-Inland Inc. In 2007, and prior years, in the ordinary course of both our and Temple-Inlands business, we provided contract underwriting services to Temple-Inland and received mortgage insurance premiums on loans for which Temple-Inland was the original insured.
We have used the law firm of Foley & Lardner LLP as our principal outside legal counsel for more than 20 years. The wife of our General Counsel is a partner in that law firm, which was paid $3,585,669 by us and our consolidated subsidiaries for legal services in 2007.
For the years ended December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2007, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) billed us fees for services of the following types:
Audit Fees include PwCs review of our quarterly financial statements. Audit-Related Fees include, for 2007, fees related to due diligence, valuation and other services relating to the cancelled merger with Radian Group Inc. (including a debt offering proposed in connection with the merger) and a regulators review of PwCs workpapers and, for 2006, services related to a debt offering and research and other services for selected ventures. Tax Fees were for corporate tax services and tax compliance services provided to certain former employees. All Other Fees represent, for 2007, subscription fees for an online library of financial reporting and assurance literature and, for 2006, fees for actuarial services relating to pricing certain insurance products, employee benefits and other actuarial services.
The rules of the SEC regarding auditor independence provide that independence may be impaired if the auditor performs services without the pre-approval of the Audit Committee. The Committees policy regarding approval and pre-approval of services by the independent auditor includes a list of services that are pre-approved as they become necessary and the Committees approving at its February meeting a schedule of other services expected to be performed during the ensuing year. If we desire the auditor to provide a service that is not in either category, the service may be presented for approval by the Committee at its next meeting or may be approved by the Chairperson (or another Committee member designated by the Chairperson). We
periodically provide the Committee with information about fees paid for services that have been approved and pre-approved.
The SEC rules regarding auditor independence provide an exception to the approval and pre-approval requirement if services are subsequently approved by an audit committee under a de minimis exception. All of PwCs services were pre-approved by the Committee in 2007 and, as a result, the de minimis exception was not used in 2007.
1. Financial statements. The following financial statements are filed in Item 8 of this annual report:
2. Financial statement schedules. The following financial statement schedules are filed as part of this Form 10-K and appear immediately following the signature page:
3. Exhibits. The accompanying Index to Exhibits is incorporated by reference in answer to this portion of this Item and, except as otherwise indicated in the next sentence, the Exhibits listed in such Index are filed as part of this Form 10-K. Exhibit 32 is not filed as part of this Form 10-K but accompanies this Form 10-K.
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, on March 14, 2008.
MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION
J. Michael Lauer
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
The following documents, identified in the footnote references above, are incorporated by reference, as indicated, to: our Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 1993, 1994, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007 (the 1993 10-K, 1994 10-K, 1997 10-K, 1999 10-K, 2001 10-K, 2002 10-K, 2004 10-K, 2005 10-K, 2006 10-K, and 2007 10-K respectively); to our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the Quarters ended March 31, 2005, June 30, 1994, 1998 or 2007 or September 30, 2004 (the March 31, 2005 10-Q, June 30, 1994 10-Q, June 30, 1998 10-Q, June 30, 2007 10-Q, and September 30, 2004 10-Q, respectively); to our registration Statement Form 8-A filed July 27, 1999 (the 8-A), as amended by Amendment No. 1 filed October 29, 2002 (the 8-A/A-No. 1) and by Amendment No. 2 filed May 14, 2004 (the 8-A/A-No. 2); to our Current Reports on Form 8-K dated October 17, 2000 (the October 2000 8-K), February 1, 2005 (the February 2005 8-K), January 31, 2006 (the January 2006 8-K), September 15, 2006 (the September 2006 8-K) December 18, 2006 (the December 2006 8-K), September 20, 2007 (the September 2007 8-K), and February 14, 2008 (the February 2008 8-K); or to our Proxy Statement for our 2005 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the 2005 Proxy Statement). The documents are further identified by cross-reference to the Exhibits in the respective documents where they were originally filed:
Supplementary List of the Exhibits which relate to management contracts or compensatory plans or arrangements: