Essent Group's Q3 2025 Earnings Call: Contradictions Emerge on Default Trends, Severity Rates, and Pricing Strategy

Date of Call: November 7, 2025

Financials Results

• EPS: $1.67 per diluted share, compared to $1.93 last quarter and $1.65 a year ago

Guidance:

• Board approved a common dividend of $0.31 for Q4 2025.
• Board authorized a new $500M share repurchase program through year-end 2027 (ongoing repurchases YTD ~9M shares for >$500M).
• Expect elevated persistency in the near term given current mortgage rate levels.
• Plan to continue upstreaming cash from Essent Guaranty (likely a larger Q4 subsidiary dividend); quota-share reinsurance also aids holdco cash.
• 2025 estimated annual effective tax rate raised to ~16.2% due to withholding; expect mid-teens tax rate going forward.

Business Commentary:

* Earnings and Shareholder Returns: - Essent Group reported a net income of $164 million for Q3 2025, compared to $176 million a year ago. - Year-to-date return on equity was 13% through the third quarter. - The company repurchased nearly 9 million shares for over $500 million year-to-date and approved a new $500 million share repurchase authorization through year-end 2027. - These actions were supported by the company's strong capital position and earnings performance, indicating confidence in returning capital to shareholders.* Mortgage Insurance In-Force and Persistency: - U.S. Mortgage Insurance in force increased to $249 billion, a 2% rise from the previous year. - Persistency rate remained flat at 86% from the previous quarter. - The stability in persistency and insurance in force was attributed to favorable credit trends and the current interest rate environment, which supports elevated persistency.

• Credit Quality and Provisions:
• The default rate increased modestly to 2.29%, reflecting seasonal trends.
• The provision for losses and loss adjustment expenses was $44.2 million, higher than the previous quarter.

• The credit quality of the insurance in force remained strong, with an average FICO score of 746, contributing to overall stability.

• Capital and Cash Flow Position:

• Consolidated cash and investments totaled $6.6 billion, with an annualized investment yield of 3.9%. - The company's strong cash flow and balance sheet position, including $5.7 billion in GAAP equity, enabled continued returns to shareholders.

  Sentiment Analysis:

  Overall Tone: Positive

  • Management: "pleased with our third quarter financial results" and "well positioned to navigate a range of scenarios." Highlights: $164M net income, $6.6B cash & investments, $854M 12-month operating cash flow, active capital return (nearly 9M shares repurchased YTD and new $500M authorization; Q4 dividend $0.31).

Q&A:

• Question from Terry Ma (Barclays Bank PLC): Just wanted to start off with credit. New notices were a bit lower than what we had, but the provision on those notices were higher. So any color on kind of just the makeup from a vintage or even geography perspective this quarter?
  Response: Higher provisions mainly reflect larger average loan sizes (~$300k) versus prior; no meaningful geographic or vintage trend and credit remains stable—no current concern.

• Question from Terry Ma (Barclays Bank PLC): The claims amount was higher and also the severity. Anything to call out there, idiosyncratic items or more of a trend?
  Response: Fluctuations are timing/documentation-driven; few claims overall and observed severity remains well below current reserves—no material issue.

• Question from Bose George (Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc.): Ceded premiums were at the high end of the range—is that a sustainable level or will it bounce depending on reinsurance timing?
  Response: Ceded premiums are seasonal and vary with defaults; the raised quota share to 25% increases volatility but the net economics wash out over time.

• Question from Bose George (Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc.): What drove the higher tax rate and where do you expect the tax rate to be over the next 12 months given your ceding and distributions?
  Response: Effective tax rate increased from 15.4% to ~16.2% mainly due to withholding on a third-quarter intercompany dividend; expect roughly ~16% (possibly slightly higher) and recommend modeling conservatively.

• Question from Richard Shane (JPMorgan Chase & Co): Severity rates rose to 78% this quarter—long term do you expect this to keep rising or is it asymptotically limited?
  Response: Severity can vary by vintage and timing, but provisions are set conservatively, the book retains embedded HPA and capital cushions, and management does not see a sustained structural upward trend at portfolio level.

• Question from Richard Shane (JPMorgan Chase & Co): Are we approaching normalized returns for the business or could returns revert materially given the long favorable period?
  Response: Normalized losses have historically been low; strong GSE guardrails and improving credit quality support continued attractive returns, with capital and reinsurance positioned for downturns.

• Question from Mihir Bhatia (BofA Securities): With noise about changing credit-score requirements at the GSEs, are you seeing originators try to push more loans through and any evidence of loosening underwriting?
  Response: No material loosening—GSE systems (DU/LP) haven't changed yet, QC/repurchase deter bypassing, and Essent's credit approach is score-agnostic and can handle potential policy shifts.

• Question from Douglas Harter (UBS Investment Bank): Plans to upstream capital from the MI subsidiary—do you plan a larger dividend or to spill capacity into Q4?
  Response: Yes—comfortable upstreaming cash and expect a larger MI subsidiary dividend in Q4; quota-share reinsurance also serves as a mechanism to move cash to the holdco.

• Question from Douglas Harter (UBS Investment Bank): Post-Title acquisition, how do you balance investing in MI versus diversifying into other growth avenues like Title or Essent Re opportunities?
  Response: Title is small and performing in line; MI remains the primary cash engine and focus—company will prioritize share repurchases/dividends unless an acquisition clearly accelerates book-value per share.

Contradiction Point 1

Default and Provision Trends

It involves the interpretation of default and provision trends, which are critical for understanding the financial health of the mortgage insurance business and potential future losses.

Can you provide details on the composition of new notices, including any geographic or vintage trends this quarter? - Terry Ma (Barclays Bank PLC, Research Division)

2025Q3: While loans default and provisions are higher, the overall default rate continues to be low at 0.21%. It's the third consecutive sub-0.3% quarter. - Mark Casale(CEO)

New defaults rose 9% year-over-year. Can you detail their composition and expectations? - Terry Ma (Barclays)

2025Q2: The 0.20% seasonal rate is consistent with the historical norms for March. - Mark Anthony Casale(CEO)

Contradiction Point 2

Severity Rates and Loss Impact

It involves the assessment of severity rates and their impact on losses, which are key factors for maintaining accurate financial forecasts and risk management strategies.

好的，我现在需要处理用户提供的这个任务。用户希望我作为专业的金融文章作者，总结并精简美股上市公司财报电话会议中的问答问题。首先，我需要仔细阅读用户的具体要求，确保不遗漏任何细节。用户给出的例子是：“Can you discuss the long-term trend in severity rates? Are we at an asymptote, or is there more room for increase?” 我的任务是将这个问题简化，同时保持原意，去除冗长和装饰词，符合美式英语习惯，并且只输出问题，不带其他内容，结尾保留问号。首先，我需要分析原问题的结构。第一个问题询问长期趋势，第二个问题在询问是否已经到达极限或还有增长空间。原问题中的“Can you discuss”可以简化为更直接的提问方式，比如“Can you explain”或者直接问趋势。但用户可能希望更简洁，所以可能直接问“Is the severity rate trend approaching an asymptote or is there more growth potential?”但原问题中的“long-term trend”需要保留，因为这是关键信息。原问题中的“asymptote”是数学术语，指渐近线，这里可能指增长趋近于极限。用户可能希望保留这个术语，但需要更简洁的表达。例如，“Are severity rates approaching an asymptote or is there more room for increase?” 但需要检查是否符合美式英语习惯，是否更自然。可能的简化版本是：“Is the severity rate trend approaching an asymptote or is there more growth potential?” 或者“Are severity rates nearing an asymptote or is there more room for increase?” 但用户提供的例子中的回答是：“Can you discuss the long-term trend in severity rates? Are we at an asymptote, or is there more room for increase?” 所以可能需要将两个问题合并，但用户希望每个问题单独处理，所以可能需要分开简化。但用户给的例子是两个问题，所以可能需要分别处理。原问题中的第一个问题：“Can you discuss the long-term trend in severity rates?” 可以简化为“Can you explain the long-term severity rate trend?” 或者更简洁的“Can you discuss severity rate trends?” 但用户可能希望保留“long-term”，所以可能需要保留。第二个问题：“Are we at an asymptote, or is there more room for increase?” 可以简化为“Is the severity rate approaching an asymptote or is there more growth potential?” 或者“Are severity rates nearing an asymptote or is there more room for increase?”需要确保符合美式英语习惯，可能使用“nearing”而不是“approaching”，或者“Is the severity rate trend approaching an asymptote or is there more room for increase?” 但可能更自然的是“Is the severity rate trend approaching an asymptote or is there more growth potential?” 或者“Are severity rates nearing an asymptote or is there more room for increase?”综合考虑，可能最佳简化是：“Is the severity rate trend approaching an asymptote or is there more room for increase?” 但需要检查是否符合用户的要求，即不改变原意，去除装饰词，保持简洁。原问题中的“Can you discuss”可以省略，直接问趋势，所以可能更直接的问题是：“Is the severity rate trend approaching an asymptote or is there more room for increase?”不过用户提供的例子中，原问题有两个部分，可能需要分开处理，但用户可能希望合并成一个问题。但根据用户给的例子，他们可能希望将两个问题合并成一个更简洁的问题，所以可能需要将两者结合起来。例如：“Is the severity rate trend approaching an asymptote or is there more room for increase?” 但原问题中的“long-term”是否需要保留？原问题中的第一个问题是关于长期趋势的，所以可能需要包含在内。因此，正确的简化可能是：“Can you explain the long-term severity rate trend and whether it's approaching an asymptote or has more growth potential?” 但用户希望每个问题单独简化，所以可能需要分开处理。但用户提供的例子中的原问题有两个问题，所以可能需要分别简化，但用户可能希望每个问题单独处理。但根据用户提供的例子，他们可能希望将两个问题合并成一个更简洁的问题，所以可能需要将两者结合。例如：“Is the severity rate trend approaching an asymptote or is there more room for increase?” 但需要确保符合美式英语习惯，并且不改变原意。因此，最终的简化问题可能是：“Is the severity rate trend approaching an asymptote or is there more room for increase?” 或者更简洁的“Are severity rates nearing an asymptote or is there more room for increase?”需要检查是否符合用户的要求，即输出仅生成的问题，没有其他内容，结尾有问号。所以最终的简化问题应该是：“Is the severity rate trend approaching an asymptote or is there more room for increase?” 或者更简洁的“Are severity rates - Richard Shane (JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division)

2025Q3: Severity rates are influenced by embedded home price appreciation and timing of defaults. While there may be fluctuations, the overall impact on losses is low. - Mark Casale(CEO)

How are you determining the sizing of cash flow to the holding company and buybacks? - Douglas Michael Harter (UBS)

2025Q2: Severity has been notably lower, and we believe early losses will be smaller than what was projected. Claims are paid from lower severity. - David Weinstock(CFO)

Contradiction Point 3

Incomes and Home Affordability

This contradiction concerns the company's stance on the affordability cycle and the role of incomes in relation to home prices and interest rates. It highlights differing expectations about the timing and factors that will influence affordability, which is crucial for the company's business model.

Can you break down the composition of new notices and highlight any notable geographic or vintage trends this quarter? - Terry Ma(Barclays)

2025Q3: The current situation is unprecedented, with low income growth and high home prices and rates affecting affordability. We are positioned well due to good unit economics in our insurance portfolio. We expect incomes to catch up before the market improves. - Mark Casale(CEO)

Are we nearing an inflection point where affordability for first-time homebuyers may improve? Are there specific regions where you're particularly optimistic or cautious? - Rick Shane(JPMorgan)

2025Q1: We are positioned well due to good unit economics in our insurance portfolio. We expect incomes to catch up before the market improves. - Mark Casale(CEO)

Contradiction Point 4

Impact of Tariffs on Pricing Strategy

This contradiction pertains to the company's approach to pricing adjustments in response to macroeconomic events such as tariffs. It shows a shift in the company's stance on whether to wait for clear catalysts before making pricing adjustments.

Will the high level of ceded premiums continue, or vary with transaction timing? - Bose George(Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc.)

2025Q3: We have raised pricing in certain markets, mainly for micro pricing elasticity. On a macro level, we're in a wait-and-see mode regarding tariffs. We price through the cycle, not based on short-term expectations. Significant events like tariffs or COVID can cause pricing changes. Currently, we're not seeing such an event. We remain vigilant but hold off on pricing adjustments until we see a clear catalyst. - Mark Casale(CEO)

How are you managing risk amid macroeconomic uncertainty and tariffs, including any pricing or underwriting adjustments? - Terry Ma(Barclays)

2025Q1: We price through the cycle, not based on short-term expectations. Significant events like tariffs or COVID can cause pricing changes. Currently, we're not seeing such an event. We remain vigilant but hold off on pricing adjustments until we see a clear catalyst. - Mark Casale(CEO)

Contradiction Point 5

Severity Rates and Default Rates

It involves the interpretation and expectations regarding severity rates and default rates, which are crucial for understanding the company's financial health and risk profile.

What is the long-term trend in severity rates, and is the rate approaching an asymptote or has room to increase further? - Richard Shane (JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division)

2025Q3: Severity rates are influenced by embedded home price appreciation and timing of defaults. While there may be fluctuations, the overall impact on losses is low. - Mark Casale(CEO)

Is the default rate excluding hurricanes approaching a steady increase despite year-over-year deceleration? - Terry Ma (Barclays)

2024Q4: Too early to call. Average age of the book has increased due to post-COVID conditions. Borrowers outstanding longer will likely lead to some defaults, but it's within expectations. - Mark Casale(CEO)