MILWAUKEE, Jan. 17, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- MGIC Investment Corporation (NYSE: MTG) today reported operating and financial results for the fourth quarter of 2018. Net income for the quarter was $157.7 million, or $0.43 per diluted share, compared with net income of $27.3 million, or $0.07 per diluted share for the fourth quarter of 2017.
Adjusted net operating income for the fourth quarter of 2018 was $154.0 million, or $0.42 per diluted share, compared with $160.7 million, or $0.43 per diluted share for the fourth quarter of 2017. We present the non-GAAP financial measure "Adjusted net operating income" to increase the comparability between periods of our financial results. See "Use of Non-GAAP financial measures" below.
New Insurance Written of $12.2 billion, compared to $12.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 2017.
Insurance in force of $209.7 billion at December 31, 2018 increased by 1.9% during the quarter and 7.6% compared to December 31, 2017.
Primary delinquent inventory of 32,898 loans at December 31, 2018 decreased 29.3% year-over-year from 46,556 loans at December 31, 2017.
Insurance written in 2008 and before accounted for approximately 16% of the December 31, 2018 primary risk in force but accounted for 67% of the new primary delinquent notices received in the quarter.
The percentage of primary loans that were delinquent at December 31, 2018 was 3.11%, compared to 4.55% at December 31, 2017, and 5.04% at December 31, 2016. The percentage of flow primary loans that were delinquent at December 31, 2018 was 2.47%, compared to 3.70% at December 31, 2017, and 4.05% at December 31, 2016.
Persistency, or the percentage of insurance remaining in force from one year prior, was 81.7% at December 31, 2018, compared with 80.1% at December 31, 2017.
The loss ratio for the fourth quarter of 2018 was 11.3%, compared to (0.6%) for the third quarter of 2018 and (13.1)% for the fourth quarter of 2017.
The underwriting expense ratio associated with our insurance operations for the fourth quarter of 2018 was 19.1%, compared to 17.6% for the third quarter of 2018 and 15.9% for the fourth quarter of 2017.
Net premium yield was 47.3 basis points in the fourth quarter of 2018, compared to 49.3 basis points for the third quarter of 2018 and 49.2 basis points for the fourth quarter of 2017.
MGIC paid a dividend of $60 million to our holding company during the fourth quarter of 2018.
Repurchased 6.8 million shares of common stock at an average cost per share of $11.06.
Book value per common share outstanding increased by 4.6% during the quarter to $10.08.
Patrick Sinks, CEO of MTG and Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation ("MGIC") said, "I am pleased to report that 2018 produced strong financial results. Specifically compared to 2017, our insurance in force increased more than 7%, persistency continued to increase, investment income increased, and we wrote nearly 3% more new insurance. The credit performance for the new business written since 2008 remains outstanding, the legacy book continued to decrease in size and contribute fewer delinquencies, and we maintained a low expense ratio." Sinks continued, "In 2018 we repurchased more than 4% of our common stock outstanding, executed an insurance linked note transaction that reduces potential future earnings volatility from credit losses, decreased our debt ratios, received an A- rating from A.M. Best for the main operating subsidiaries, and increased dividends to our holding company to $220 million."
Sinks added, "As we enter 2019, we are well positioned in the marketplace to provide credit enhancement and low down payment solutions to lenders, GSEs and borrowers, now, and in the future. We expect that our insurance in force will continue to increase as a result of strong annual persistency and new business writings. Further we anticipate that the number of new mortgage delinquency notices, claims paid and delinquency inventory will continue to decline. We will continue to focus on capital management activities and maintaining our low expense ratio."
Total revenues for the fourth quarter of 2018 were $285.6 million, compared to $271.5 million in the fourth quarter last year. Net premiums written for the quarter were $248.0 million, compared to $259.5 million for the same period last year. Net premiums earned for the quarter were $245.7 million, compared to $237.4 million for the same period last year. The increase was primarily due to higher average insurance in force and a decrease in ceded premiums during the quarter, partially offset by the effect of lower premium rates. The ceded premiums decreased due to lower ceded losses, resulting in a higher profit commission. Investment income for the fourth quarter increased to $38.3 million, from $31.3 million for the same period last year, resulting from an increase in the consolidated investment portfolio as well as higher yields.
Losses incurred in the fourth quarter of 2018 were $27.7 million, compared to $(31.0) million in the fourth quarter of 2017. During the fourth quarter of 2018 there was a $22 million reduction in losses incurred due to positive development on our primary loss reserves, before reinsurance, for previously received delinquent notices, compared to a reduction of $103 million in the fourth quarter of 2017.
Net underwriting and other expenses were $50.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2018, compared to $43.8 million in the same period last year. The increase in expenses was due to higher compensation and other expenses.
The effective income tax rate was 19.0% in the fourth quarter of 2018, compared to 88.9% in the fourth quarter of 2017. The decrease reflects the reduction to the statutory income tax rate and the remeasurement of our net deferred tax assets in the fourth quarter of 2017 due to the lower enacted statutory income tax rate.
As of December 31, 2018, total shareholders' equity was $3.6 billion and outstanding principal on borrowings was $837 million.
During 2018, we repurchased approximately 16.0 million shares of our common stock at an average cost per share of $10.95, for a total cost of approximately $175 million. Our authorized share repurchase program had approximately $25 million remaining as of December 31, 2018.
Preliminary Consolidated Risk-to-Capital was 9.8:1 as of December 31, 2018, compared to 10.5:1 as of December 31, 2017.
MGIC's PMIERs Available Assets totaled $4.8 billion, or $1.4 billion above its Minimum Required Assets as of December 31, 2018.
Total assets were $5.7 billion as of December 31, 2018, compared to $5.6 billion as of December 31, 2017, and $5.7 billion as of December 31, 2016.
The fair value of our investment portfolio, cash and cash equivalents was $5.3 billion as of December 31, 2018, compared to $5.1 billion as of December 31, 2017, and $4.8 billion as of December 31, 2016.
Investments, cash and cash equivalents at the holding company were $248 million as of December 31, 2018, compared to $261 million as of September 30, 2018, and $216 million as of December 31, 2017.
MGIC Investment Corporation will hold a conference call today, January 17, 2019, at 10 a.m. ET to allow securities analysts and shareholders the opportunity to hear management discuss the company's quarterly results. The conference call number is 1-866-834-4126. The call is being webcast and can be accessed at the company's website at http://mtg.mgic.com/. A replay of the webcast will be available on the company's website through February 17, 2019 under "Newsroom."
MGIC (www.mgic.com), the principal subsidiary of MGIC Investment Corporation, serves lenders throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and other locations helping families achieve homeownership sooner by making affordable low-down-payment mortgages a reality. At December 31, 2018, MGIC had $209.7 billion of primary insurance in force covering over one million mortgages.
Our actual results could be affected by the risk factors below. These risk factors should be reviewed in connection with this press release and our periodic reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). These risk factors may also cause actual results to differ materially from the results contemplated by forward looking statements that we may make. Forward looking statements consist of statements which relate to matters other than historical fact, including matters that inherently refer to future events. Among others, statements that include words such as "believe," "anticipate," "will" or "expect," or words of similar import, are forward looking statements. We are not undertaking any obligation to update any forward looking statements or other statements we may make even though these statements may be affected by events or circumstances occurring after the forward looking statements or other statements were made. No investor should rely on the fact that such statements are current at any time other than the time at which this press release was delivered for dissemination to the public.
In addition, the current period financial results included in this press release may be affected by additional information that arises prior to the filing of our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018.
We believe that use of the Non-GAAP measures of adjusted pre-tax operating income (loss), adjusted net operating income (loss) and adjusted net operating income (loss) per diluted share facilitate the evaluation of the company's core financial performance thereby providing relevant information to investors. These measures are not recognized in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) and should not be viewed as alternatives to GAAP measures of performance.
Adjusted net operating income (loss) is defined as GAAP net income (loss) excluding the after-tax effects of net realized investment gains (losses), gain (loss) on debt extinguishment, net impairment losses recognized in income (loss), and infrequent or unusual non-operating items where applicable. The amounts of adjustments to components of pre-tax operating income (loss) are tax effected using a federal statutory tax rate of 21% in 2018 and 35% in 2017.
Although adjusted pre-tax operating income (loss) and adjusted net operating income (loss) exclude certain items that have occurred in the past and are expected to occur in the future, the excluded items represent items that are: (1) not viewed as part of the operating performance of our primary activities; or (2) impacted by both discretionary and other economic or regulatory factors and are not necessarily indicative of operating trends, or both. These adjustments, along with the reasons for their treatment, are described below. Trends in the profitability of our fundamental operating activities can be more clearly identified without the fluctuations of these adjustments. Other companies may calculate these measures differently. Therefore, their measures may not be comparable to those used by us.
Infrequent or unusual non-operating items. Our income tax expense includes amounts related to our IRS dispute and is related to past transactions which are non-recurring in nature and are not part of our primary operating activities. Our income tax expense for 2017 reflects a reduction in our net deferred tax asset due to the rate decrease included in the tax reform enacted in the fourth quarter of 2017.
Interest expense for the three months and year ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 has been tax effected at a rate of 21% and 35%, respectively.
(1) For the Year Ended December 31, 2018, the Reconciliation of Net income per diluted share to Adjusted net operating income per diluted share does not foot due to rounding of the adjustments.
Excluding our estimate of delinquencies resulting from hurricane activity and their associated loss reserves, the average direct reserve per delinquency was approximately $24,000.
Excludes amounts paid in settlement disputes for claims paying practices and/or commutations of non-performing loans.
Net paid claims, as presented, does not include amounts received in conjunction with terminations or commutations of reinsurance agreements.
As used below, "we," "our" and "us" refer to MGIC Investment Corporation's consolidated operations or to MGIC Investment Corporation, as the context requires; and "MGIC" refers to Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation.
Our actual results could be affected by the risk factors below. These risk factors should be reviewed in connection with this press release and our periodic reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). These risk factors may also cause actual results to differ materially from the results contemplated by forward looking statements that we may make, including forward looking statements in these risk factors. Forward looking statements consist of statements that relate to matters other than historical fact, including matters that inherently refer to future events. Among others, statements that include words such as "believe," "anticipate," "will" or "expect," or words of similar import, are forward looking statements. We are not undertaking any obligation to update any forward looking statements or other statements we may make even though these statements may be affected by events or circumstances occurring after the forward looking statements or other statements were made. No investor should rely on the fact that such statements are current at any time other than the time at which this press release was delivered for dissemination to the public.
The private mortgage insurance industry is highly competitive and is expected to remain so. We believe that we currently compete with other private mortgage insurers based on premium rates, underwriting requirements, financial strength (including based on credit or financial strength ratings), customer relationships, name recognition, reputation, the strength of our management team and field organization, the ancillary products and services provided to lenders and the effective use of technology and innovation in the delivery and servicing of our mortgage insurance products.
Much of the competition in the industry in the last few years has centered on pricing practices which have included: (i) reductions in standard filed rates for borrower-paid mortgage insurance policies ("BPMI"); (ii) use by competitors of a spectrum of filed rates to allow for formulaic, risk-based pricing that may be adjusted more frequently within certain parameters (referred to as "loan level pricing systems"); and (iii) use of customized rates (discounted from standard rates) that are made available to lenders that meet certain criteria.
We monitor various competitive and economic factors while seeking to balance both profitability and market share considerations in developing our pricing strategies. We reduced certain of our rates in 2018, which will reduce our premium yield (net premiums earned divided by the average insurance in force) over time as older insurance policies with higher premium rates run off and new insurance policies with lower premium rates are written. Because the industry is currently experiencing relatively low levels of mortgage insurance losses and acceptable returns on new business, we expect price competition to remain strong.
In 2018, we continued to evolve our pricing from a standard rate card approach, where premium rates vary based on relatively few attributes, to a more granular approach, where more attributes are considered. In the first quarter of 2019 we introduced MiQ™, our loan level pricing system that establishes our premium rates based on more risk attributes than were considered in 2018. The widespread use of loan level pricing systems by the private mortgage industry will make it more difficult to compare our rates to those offered by our competitors. We may not be aware of industry changes until we observe that our volume of new insurance written ("NIW") has changed and our volume may fluctuate more as a result.
There can be no assurance that our premium rates adequately reflect the risk associated with the underlying mortgage insurance policies. For additional information, see our risk factors titled "The premiums we charge may not be adequate to compensate us for our liabilities for losses and as a result any inadequacy could materially affect our financial condition and results of operations" and "If our risk management programs are not effective in identifying, or adequate in controlling or mitigating, the risks we face, or if the models used in our businesses are inaccurate, it could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition."
Our relationships with our customers, which may affect the amount of our new business written, could be adversely affected by a variety of factors, including if our premium rates are higher than those of our competitors, our underwriting requirements result in our declining to insure some of the loans originated by our customers, or our insurance policy rescissions and claim curtailments affect the customer. Regarding the concentration of our new business, our largest customer accounted for approximately 4% and 5% of our NIW in each of 2017 and 2018, respectively, and our top ten customers accounted for approximately 23% and 24% of our NIW, in each of 2017 and 2018, respectively.
Certain of our competitors have access to capital at a lower cost than we do (including, through off-shore reinsurance vehicles, which are also tax-advantaged). As a result, they may be better positioned to compete outside of traditional mortgage insurance, including by participating in alternative forms of credit enhancement pursued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the "GSEs") discussed in our risk factor titled "The amount of insurance we write could be adversely affected if lenders and investors select alternatives to private mortgage insurance." In addition, because of their tax advantages, all other things equal, certain competitors may be able to achieve higher after-tax rates of return on their NIW compared to us, which could allow them to leverage reduced premium rates to gain market share.
Our ability to participate in the non-GSE mortgage market (which has been limited since 2008, but may grow in the future), could depend on our ability to maintain and improve our investment grade ratings for our mortgage insurance subsidiaries. We could be competitively disadvantaged with some market participants because the financial strength ratings of our insurance subsidiaries are lower than those of some competitors. MGIC's financial strength rating from Moody's is Baa2 (with a stable outlook) , from Standard & Poor's is BBB+ (with a stable outlook) and from A.M. Best is A- (with a stable outlook).
Financial strength ratings may also play a greater role if the GSEs no longer operate in their current capacities, for example, due to legislative or regulatory action. In addition, although the PMIERs do not require minimum financial strength ratings, the GSEs consider financial strength ratings to be important when using forms of credit enhancement other than traditional mortgage insurance, as discussed in our risk factor titled "The amount of insurance we write could be adversely affected if lenders and investors select alternatives to private mortgage insurance."
In 2018, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae initiated programs with loan level mortgage default coverage provided by various (re)insurers that are not mortgage insurers governed by PMIERs, and that are not selected by the lenders. These programs offer premium rates that are generally below prevalent single premium lender paid mortgage insurance ("LPMI") rates. While we view these programs as competing with traditional private mortgage insurance, we have participated in them and may participate in future GSE or other programs.
The GSEs (and other investors) have also used other forms of credit enhancement that did not involve traditional private mortgage insurance, such as engaging in credit-linked note transactions executed in the capital markets, or using other forms of debt issuances or securitizations that transfer credit risk directly to other investors, including competitors and an affiliate of MGIC; using other risk mitigation techniques in conjunction with reduced levels of private mortgage insurance coverage; or accepting credit risk without credit enhancement.
The FHA's share of the low down payment residential mortgages that were subject to FHA, VA, USDA or primary private mortgage insurance was 30.0% in the first nine months of 2018, 33.9% in 2017 and 34.2% in 2016 (these figures exclude FHA's home equity conversion mortgages, or HECMs). In the past ten years, the FHA's share has been as low as 30.0% in 2018 and as high as 66.8% in 2009. Factors that influence the FHA's market share include relative rates and fees, underwriting guidelines and loan limits of the FHA, VA, private mortgage insurers and the GSEs; lenders' perceptions of legal risks under FHA versus GSE programs; flexibility for the FHA to establish new products as a result of federal legislation and programs; returns expected to be obtained by lenders for Ginnie Mae securitization of FHA-insured loans compared to those obtained from selling loans to the GSEs for securitization; and differences in policy terms, such as the ability of a borrower to cancel insurance coverage under certain circumstances. We cannot predict how the factors that affect the FHA's share of new insurance written will change in the future.
The VA's share of the low down payment residential mortgages that were subject to FHA, VA, USDA or primary private mortgage insurance was 24.9% in the first nine months of 2018, 24.7% in 2017 and 27.2% in 2016. In the past ten years, the VA's share has been as low as 14.3% in 2009 and as high as 27.2% in 2016. We believe that the VA's market share has generally been increasing because of an increase in the number of borrowers that are eligible for the VA's program, which offers 100% loan-to-value ratio ("LTV") loans and charges a one-time funding fee that can be included in the loan amount, and because eligible borrowers have opted to use the VA program when refinancing their mortgages.
private mortgage insurer eligibility requirements of the GSEs, the financial requirements of which are discussed in our risk factor titled "We may not continue to meet the GSEs' private mortgage insurer eligibility requirements and our returns may decrease as we are required to maintain more capital in order to maintain our eligibility,"
the capital and collateral requirements for participants in the GSEs' alternative forms of credit enhancement discussed in our risk factor titled "The amount of insurance we write could be adversely affected if lenders and investors select alternatives to private mortgage insurance,"
the maximum loan limits of the GSEs compared to those of the FHA and other investors.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA") has been the conservator of the GSEs since 2008 and has the authority to control and direct their operations. The increased role that the federal government has assumed in the residential housing finance system through the GSE conservatorship may increase the likelihood that the business practices of the GSEs change, including through administrative action, in ways that have a material adverse effect on us and that the charters of the GSEs are changed by new federal legislation. In the past, members of Congress have introduced several bills intended to change the business practices of the GSEs and the FHA; however, no legislation has been enacted.
The Administration issued a June 2018 report indicating that the conservatorship of the GSEs should end and that the GSEs should transition to fully private entities, competing on a level playing field with private issuers of mortgage-backed securities ("MBS") (such issuers, collectively with the GSEs, referred to in the report as the "guarantors"). The report further indicated that a federal entity should regulate the guarantors, including their capital adequacy, and that guarantors should have access to an explicit federal guarantee on the MBS that is exposed only after substantial losses are incurred by the private market, including the guarantors. The report also indicated that a fee on the outstanding volume of MBS would be transferred to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (of which the FHA is a part) to be used for affordable housing purposes. As a result of the matters referred to above, it is uncertain what role the GSEs, FHA and private capital, including private mortgage insurance, will play in the residential housing finance system in the future. The timing and impact on our business of any resulting changes is uncertain. Most meaningful changes would require Congressional action to implement and it is difficult to estimate when Congressional action would be final and how long any associated phase-in period may last.
We must comply with the PMIERs to be eligible to insure loans delivered to or purchased by the GSEs. The PMIERs include financial requirements, as well as business, quality control and certain transaction approval requirements. The financial requirements of the PMIERs require a mortgage insurer's "Available Assets" (generally only the most liquid assets of an insurer) to equal or exceed its "Minimum Required Assets" (which are based on an insurer's book of insurance in force and are calculated from tables of factors with several risk dimensions and are subject to a floor amount).
Based on our interpretation of the PMIERs, as of December 31, 2018, MGIC's Available Assets totaled $4.8 billion, or $1.4 billion in excess of its Minimum Required Assets. MGIC is in compliance with the PMIERs and eligible to insure loans purchased by the GSEs. Revised PMIERs were published in September 2018 and will become effective March 31, 2019. If the revised PMIERs had been effective as of December 31, 2018, we estimate that MGIC's pro forma excess of Available Assets over Minimum Required Assets would have been approximately $1 billion. The decrease in the pro forma excess from the reported excess of $1.4 billion is primarily due to the elimination of any credit for future premiums that had previously been allowed for certain insurance policies.
In calculating our "Minimum Required Assets," we are allowed full credit for the risk ceded under our quota share reinsurance transactions with unaffiliated reinsurers and expect to be allowed full credit for our excess-of-loss reinsurance transaction entered into on October 30, 2018, discussed in our risk factor titled "The mix of business we write affects our Minimum Required Assets under the PMIERs, our premium yields and the likelihood of losses occurring." Our reinsurance transactions will be reviewed under the PMIERs at least annually and there is a risk we will not receive full credit in future periods for the risk ceded under them. If MGIC is not allowed certain levels of credit under the PMIERs, under certain circumstances, MGIC may terminate the reinsurance transactions, without penalty.
The GSEs may amend the PMIERs at any time and may make the PMIERs more onerous in the future. In June 2018, the FHFA issued a proposed rule on regulatory capital requirements for the GSEs ("Enterprise Capital Requirements"), which included a framework for determining the capital relief allowed to the GSEs for loans with private mortgage insurance. The GSEs have indicated that there may be potential future implications for PMIERs based upon feedback the FHFA receives on its proposed rule on Enterprise Capital Requirements (public comments were due by November 16, 2018). In addition, the PMIERs provide that the factors that determine Minimum Required Assets will be updated every two years and may be updated more frequently to reflect changes in macroeconomic conditions or loan performance. The GSEs have indicated that they will generally provide notice 180 days prior to the effective date of such updates.
While on an overall basis, the amount of Available Assets MGIC must hold in order to continue to insure GSE loans is greater under the PMIERs than what state regulation currently requires, our reinsurance transactions mitigate the negative effect of the PMIERs on our returns. However, reinsurance may not always be available to us or available on similar terms, it subjects us to counterparty credit risk and the GSEs may change the credit they allow under the PMIERs for risk ceded under our reinsurance transactions.
Before paying an insurance claim, we review the loan and servicing files to determine the appropriateness of the claim amount. When reviewing the files, we may determine that we have the right to rescind coverage on the loan. In our SEC reports, we refer to insurance rescissions and denials of claims collectively as "rescissions" and variations of that term. In addition, our insurance policies generally provide that we can reduce or deny a claim if the servicer did not comply with its obligations under our insurance policy. We call such reduction of claims "curtailments." In recent quarters, an immaterial percentage of claims received in a quarter have been resolved by rescissions. In 2017 and 2018, curtailments reduced our average claim paid by approximately 5.6% and 5.8%, respectively.
When the insured disputes our right to rescind coverage or curtail claims, we generally engage in discussions in an attempt to settle the dispute. If we are unable to reach a settlement, the outcome of a dispute ultimately may be determined by legal proceedings.
Under ASC 450-20, until a liability associated with settlement discussions or legal proceedings becomes probable and can be reasonably estimated, we consider our claim payment or rescission resolved for financial reporting purposes and do not accrue an estimated loss. Where we have determined that a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we have recorded our best estimate of our probable loss.
In addition to matters for which we have recorded a probable loss, we are involved in other discussions and/or proceedings with insureds with respect to our claims paying practices. Although it is reasonably possible that when these matters are resolved we will not prevail in all cases, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the potential liability. We estimate the maximum exposure associated with matters where a loss is reasonably possible to be approximately $279 million. This estimate of maximum exposure is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment, numerous assumptions and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimate of maximum exposure will change from time to time. This estimate of our maximum exposure does not include interest or consequential or exemplary damages.
Mortgage insurers, including MGIC, have been involved in litigation and regulatory actions related to alleged violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly known as FCRA. While these proceedings in the aggregate have not resulted in material liability for MGIC, there can be no assurance that the outcome of future proceedings, if any, under these laws would not have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, various regulators, including the CFPB, state insurance commissioners and state attorneys general may bring other actions seeking various forms of relief in connection with alleged violations of RESPA. The insurance law provisions of many states prohibit paying for the referral of insurance business and provide various mechanisms to enforce this prohibition. While we believe our practices are in conformity with applicable laws and regulations, it is not possible to predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of any such reviews or investigations nor is it possible to predict their effect on us or the mortgage insurance industry.
We are subject to comprehensive, detailed regulation by state insurance departments. These regulations are principally designed for the protection of our insured policyholders, rather than for the benefit of investors. Although their scope varies, state insurance laws generally grant broad supervisory powers to agencies or officials to examine insurance companies and enforce rules or exercise discretion affecting almost every significant aspect of the insurance business. State insurance regulatory authorities could take actions, including changes in capital requirements, that could have a material adverse effect on us. For more information about state capital requirements, see our risk factor titled "State capital requirements may prevent us from continuing to write new insurance on an uninterrupted basis." To the extent that we are construed to make independent credit decisions in connection with our contract underwriting activities, we also could be subject to increased regulatory requirements under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, commonly known as ECOA, FCRA, and other laws. For more details about the various ways in which our subsidiaries are regulated, see "Regulation" in Item 1 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 23, 2018. In addition to regulation by state insurance regulators, the CFPB may issue additional rules or regulations, which may materially affect our business.
In December 2013, the U.S. Treasury Department's Federal Insurance Office released a report that calls for federal standards and oversight for mortgage insurers to be developed and implemented. It is uncertain if and when the standards and oversight will become effective and what form they will take.
Our enterprise risk management program, described in "Business - Our Products and Services - Risk Management" in Item 1 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 23, 2018, may not be effective in identifying, or adequate in controlling or mitigating, the risks we face in our business.
We employ proprietary and third party models to project returns, price products (including through our new loan level pricing system), calculate reserves, generate projections used to estimate future pre-tax income and to evaluate loss recognition testing, evaluate risk, determine internal capital requirements, perform stress testing, and for other uses. These models rely on estimates and projections that are inherently uncertain and may not operate as intended. In addition, from time to time we seek to improve certain models, and the conversion process may result in material changes to assumptions, including those about returns and financial results. The models we employ are complex, which increases our risk of error in their design, implementation or use. Also, the associated input data, assumptions and calculations may not be correct, and the controls we have in place to mitigate that risk may not be effective in all cases. The risks related to our models may increase when we change assumptions and/or methodologies, or when we add or change modeling platforms. We have enhanced, and we intend to continue to enhance, our modeling capabilities. Moreover, we may use information we receive through enhancements to refine or otherwise change existing assumptions and/or methodologies.
When we establish reserves, we estimate the ultimate loss on delinquent loans using estimated claim rates and claim amounts. The estimated claim rates and claim amounts represent our best estimates of what we will actually pay on the loans in default as of the reserve date and incorporate anticipated mitigation from rescissions and curtailments. The establishment of loss reserves is subject to inherent uncertainty and requires judgment by management. The actual amount of the claim payments may be substantially different than our loss reserve estimates. Our estimates could be affected by several factors, including a change in regional or national economic conditions, and a change in the length of time loans are delinquent before claims are received. The change in conditions may include changes in unemployment, affecting borrowers' income and thus their ability to make mortgage payments, and changes in home prices, which may affect borrower willingness to continue to make mortgage payments when the value of the home is below the mortgage balance. Changes to our estimates could have a material impact on our future results, even in a stable economic environment. In addition, historically, losses incurred have followed a seasonal trend in which the second half of the year has weaker credit performance than the first half, with higher new default notice activity and a lower cure rate.
A decline in the volume of low down payment home mortgage originations could decrease demand for mortgage insurance and decrease our new insurance written. For other factors that could decrease the demand for mortgage insurance, see our risk factor titled "The amount of insurance we write could be adversely affected if lenders and investors select alternatives to private mortgage insurance."
The insurance laws of 16 jurisdictions, including Wisconsin, MGIC's domiciliary state, require a mortgage insurer to maintain a minimum amount of statutory capital relative to its risk in force (or a similar measure) in order for the mortgage insurer to continue to write new business. We refer to these requirements as the "State Capital Requirements." While they vary among jurisdictions, the most common State Capital Requirements allow for a maximum risk-to-capital ratio of 25 to 1. A risk-to-capital ratio will increase if (i) the percentage decrease in capital exceeds the percentage decrease in insured risk, or (ii) the percentage increase in capital is less than the percentage increase in insured risk. Wisconsin does not regulate capital by using a risk-to-capital measure but instead requires a minimum policyholder position ("MPP"). The "policyholder position" of a mortgage insurer is its net worth or surplus, contingency reserve and a portion of the reserves for unearned premiums.
At December 31, 2018, MGIC's risk-to-capital ratio was 9.0 to 1, below the maximum allowed by the jurisdictions with State Capital Requirements, and its policyholder position was $2.6 billion above the required MPP of $1.3 billion. Our risk-to-capital ratio and MPP reflect full credit for the risk ceded under our quota share reinsurance transactions with unaffiliated reinsurers. It is possible that under the revised State Capital Requirements discussed below, MGIC will not be allowed full credit for the risk ceded under such transactions. If MGIC is not allowed an agreed level of credit under the State Capital Requirements, MGIC may terminate the reinsurance transactions, without penalty. At this time, we expect MGIC to continue to comply with the current State Capital Requirements; however, you should read the rest of these risk factors for information about matters that could negatively affect such compliance.
At December 31, 2018, the risk-to-capital ratio of our combined insurance operations (which includes a reinsurance affiliate) was 9.8 to 1. Reinsurance transactions with our affiliate permit MGIC to write insurance with a higher coverage percentage than it could on its own under certain state-specific requirements.
The NAIC plans to revise the minimum capital and surplus requirements for mortgage insurers that are provided for in its Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Model Act. In May 2016, a working group of state regulators released an exposure draft of a risk-based capital framework to establish capital requirements for mortgage insurers, although no date has been established by which the NAIC must propose revisions to the capital requirements and certain items have not yet been completely addressed by the framework, including the treatment of ceded risk, minimum capital floors, and action level triggers. Currently we believe that the PMIERs contain more restrictive capital requirements than the draft Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Model Act in most circumstances.
While MGIC currently meets, and expects to continue to meet, the State Capital Requirements of Wisconsin and all other jurisdictions, it could be prevented from writing new business in the future in all jurisdictions if it fails to meet the State Capital Requirements of Wisconsin, or it could be prevented from writing new business in a particular jurisdiction if it fails to meet the State Capital Requirements of that jurisdiction, and in each case MGIC does not obtain a waiver of such requirements. It is possible that regulatory action by one or more jurisdictions, including those that do not have specific State Capital Requirements, may prevent MGIC from continuing to write new insurance in such jurisdictions. If we are unable to write business in a particular jurisdiction, lenders may be unwilling to procure insurance from us anywhere. In addition, a lender's assessment of the future ability of our insurance operations to meet the State Capital Requirements or the PMIERs may affect its willingness to procure insurance from us. In this regard, see our risk factor titled "Competition or changes in our relationships with our customers could reduce our revenues, reduce our premium yields and/or increase our losses." A possible future failure by MGIC to meet the State Capital Requirements or the PMIERs will not necessarily mean that MGIC lacks sufficient resources to pay claims on its insurance liabilities. While we believe MGIC has sufficient claims paying resources to meet its claim obligations on its insurance in force on a timely basis, you should read the rest of these risk factors for information about matters that could negatively affect MGIC's claims paying resources.
Losses result from events that reduce a borrower's ability or willingness to continue to make mortgage payments, such as unemployment, health issues, family status, and whether the home of a borrower who defaults on his mortgage can be sold for an amount that will cover unpaid principal and interest and the expenses of the sale. In general, favorable economic conditions reduce the likelihood that borrowers will lack sufficient income to pay their mortgages and also favorably affect the value of homes, thereby reducing and in some cases even eliminating a loss from a mortgage default. A deterioration in economic conditions, including an increase in unemployment, generally increases the likelihood that borrowers will not have sufficient income to pay their mortgages and can also adversely affect home prices, which in turn can influence the willingness of borrowers with sufficient resources to make mortgage payments to do so when the mortgage balance exceeds the value of the home. Home prices may decline even absent a deterioration in economic conditions due to declines in demand for homes, which in turn may result from changes in buyers' perceptions of the potential for future appreciation, restrictions on and the cost of mortgage credit due to more stringent underwriting standards, higher interest rates generally, changes to the deductibility of mortgage interest or mortgage insurance premiums for income tax purposes, decreases in the rate of household formations, or other factors. Changes in home prices and unemployment levels are inherently difficult to forecast given the uncertainty in the current market environment, including uncertainty about the effect of actions the federal government has taken and may take with respect to tax policies, mortgage finance programs and policies, and housing finance reform.
The Minimum Required Assets under the PMIERs are, in part, a function of the direct risk-in-force and the risk profile of the loans we insure, considering loan-to-value ratio, credit score, vintage, Home Affordable Refinance Program ("HARP") status and delinquency status; and whether the loans were insured under lender-paid mortgage insurance policies or other policies that are not subject to automatic termination consistent with the Homeowners Protection Act requirements for borrower paid mortgage insurance. Therefore, if our direct risk-in-force increases through increases in new insurance written, or if our mix of business changes to include loans with higher loan-to-value ratios or lower FICO scores, for example, or if we insure a higher percentage of loans under lender-paid mortgage insurance policies, all other things equal, we will be required to hold more Available Assets in order to maintain GSE eligibility.
The minimum capital required by the risk-based capital framework contained in the exposure draft released by the NAIC in May 2016 would be, in part, a function of certain loan and economic factors, including property location, loan-to-value ratio and credit score; general underwriting quality in the market at the time of loan origination; the age of the loan; and the premium rate we charge. Depending on the provisions of the capital requirements when they are released in final form and become effective, our mix of business may affect the minimum capital we are required to hold under the new framework.
The percentage of our NIW from all single-premium policies (LPMI and BPMI, combined) has ranged from approximately 10% in 2013 to 19% in 2017 and was 17% in 2018. Depending on the actual life of a single premium policy and its premium rate relative to that of a monthly premium policy, a single premium policy may generate more or less premium than a monthly premium policy over its life.
We have in place quota share reinsurance ("QSR") transactions with unaffiliated reinsurers that cover most of our insurance written from 2013 through 2018, and a portion of our insurance written prior to 2013. Although the transactions reduce our premiums, they have a lesser impact on our overall results, as losses ceded under the transactions reduce our losses incurred and the ceding commissions we receive reduce our underwriting expenses. The blended pre-tax cost of reinsurance under our different transactions is less than 6% (but will decrease if losses are materially higher than we expect). This blended pre-tax cost is derived by dividing the reduction in our pre-tax income on loans covered by reinsurance by our direct (that is, without reinsurance) premiums from such loans. Although the pre-tax cost of the reinsurance under each transaction is generally constant, the effect of the reinsurance on the various components of pre-tax income will vary from period to period, depending on the level of ceded losses. We expect that in the first quarter of 2019, we will enter into an agreement covering most of our new insurance written in 2019, on terms no less favorable than our existing transactions.
On October 30, 2018, MGIC entered into a reinsurance agreement that provides for up to $318.6 million of aggregate excess-of-loss reinsurance coverage for a portion of the risk associated with certain mortgage insurance policies having an insurance coverage in force date on or after July 1, 2016 and before January 1, 2018. For the reinsurance coverage period, MGIC will retain the first layer of $168.7 million of aggregate losses, and the reinsurer will provide second layer coverage up to the outstanding reinsurance coverage amount. The reinsurance premiums ceded under this reinsurance agreement reduced our net premiums by $2.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2018.
In addition to the effect of reinsurance on our premiums, we expect a decline in our premium yield resulting from the premium rates themselves. An increasing percentage of our insurance in force is from book years with lower premium rates because premium rates have trended lower in recent periods and are expected to continue to trend lower into 2019.
The circumstances in which we are entitled to rescind coverage have narrowed for insurance we have written in recent years. During the second quarter of 2012, we began writing a portion of our new insurance under an endorsement to our then existing master policy (the "Gold Cert Endorsement"), which limited our ability to rescind coverage compared to that master policy. To comply with requirements of the GSEs, we introduced our current master policy in 2014. Our rescission rights under our current master policy are comparable to those under our previous master policy, as modified by the Gold Cert Endorsement. As of December 31, 2018, approximately 82% of our flow, primary insurance in force was written under our Gold Cert Endorsement or our current master policy. The revised PMIERs, which become effective March 31, 2019, include rescission relief principles that were provided as guidance to be used when drafting our new master policy. The principles will, among other things, further limit the circumstances under which we may rescind coverage, potentially resulting in higher losses than would be the case under our existing master policies. We expect a new version of our master policy, incorporating these rescission relief principles, to be effective for business written beginning in the third or fourth quarter of 2019, subject to state statutory approvals.
From time to time, in response to market conditions, we change the types of loans that we insure and the requirements under which we insure them. We also change our underwriting guidelines, in part through aligning some of them with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for loans that receive and are processed in accordance with certain approval recommendations from a GSE automated underwriting system. We also make exceptions to our underwriting requirements on a loan-by-loan basis and for certain customer programs. As a result of changes to our underwriting guidelines and requirements (including those related to debt to income ("DTI") ratios, credit scores, and the manner in which income levels and property values are determined) and other factors, our business written beginning in the second half of 2013 is expected to have a somewhat higher claim incidence than business written in 2009 through the first half of 2013, but materially below that on business written in 2005-2008. However, we believe this business presents an acceptable level of risk. Our underwriting requirements are available on our website at http://www.mgic.com/underwriting/index.html.
Even when home prices are stable or rising, mortgages with certain characteristics have higher probabilities of claims. These characteristics include higher LTV ratios, lower FICO scores, limited underwriting, including limited borrower documentation, or higher DTI ratios, as well as loans having combinations of higher risk factors. As of December 31, 2018, mortgages with these characteristics in our primary risk in force included mortgages with LTV ratios greater than 95% (14.8%), loans with borrowers having FICO scores below 620 (2.3%), mortgages with borrowers having FICO scores of 620-679 (10.3%), mortgages with limited underwriting, including limited borrower documentation (2.2%), and mortgages with borrowers having DTI ratios greater than 45% (or where no ratio is available) (14.3%), each attribute as determined at the time of loan origination. An individual loan may have more than one of these attributes.
Beginning in 2017, the percentage of NIW that we have written on mortgages with LTV ratios greater than 95% and mortgages with DTI ratios greater than 45% has increased. In 2018, we started considering DTI ratios when setting our rates, and we changed our methodology for calculating DTI ratios for pricing and eligibility purposes to exclude the impact of mortgage insurance premiums. As a result of this change, we expect to insure certain loans that would not have previously met our guidelines and to offer premium rates for certain loans lower than would have been offered under our previous methodology.
Until our loan level pricing system (discussed in our risk factor titled "Competition or changes in our relationships with our customers could reduce our revenues, reduce our premium yields and / or increase our losses") is more broadly adopted by customers, we will be unable to adjust our rates as quickly as those competitors using loan level pricing systems for the majority of their business. During that time, there is an increased risk that we are adversely selected by lenders to insure certain loans, which may result in an increase in the credit risk we bear and/or a decrease in the volume of loans we insure.
As of December 31, 2018, approximately 1% of our primary risk in force consisted of adjustable rate mortgages which allow for adjustment of the initial interest rate during the five years after the mortgage closing ("ARMs"). We classify as fixed rate loans adjustable rate mortgages with an initial interest rate that is fixed during the five years after the mortgage closing and loans with temporary interest rate adjustments during the initial five years, commonly referred to as "buydowns," that convert to a fixed rate for the duration of the loan term. If interest rates should rise between the time of origination of such loans and when their interest rates may be reset, claim rates on such loans may be substantially higher than for loans without variable interest rate features. In addition, prior to 2011, we insured "interest-only" loans, which may also be ARMs, and loans with negative amortization features, such as pay option ARMs. We believe claim rates on these loans will be substantially higher than on loans without scheduled payment increases that are made to borrowers of comparable credit quality.
If state or federal regulations or statutes are changed in ways that ease mortgage lending standards and/or requirements, or if lenders seek ways to replace business in times of lower mortgage originations, it is possible that more mortgage loans could be originated with higher risk characteristics than are currently being originated, such as loans with lower FICO scores and higher DTIs. Lenders could pressure mortgage insurers to insure such loans, which are expected to experience higher claim rates. Although we attempt to incorporate these higher expected claim rates into our underwriting and pricing models, there can be no assurance that the premiums earned and the associated investment income will be adequate to compensate for actual losses even under our current underwriting requirements. We do, however, believe that our insurance written beginning in the second half of 2008 will generate underwriting profits.
We set premiums at the time a policy is issued based on our expectations regarding likely performance of the insured risks over the long term. Our premiums are subject to approval by state regulatory agencies, which can delay or limit our ability to increase our premiums. Generally, we cannot cancel mortgage insurance coverage or adjust renewal premiums during the life of a mortgage insurance policy. As a result, higher than anticipated claims generally cannot be offset by premium increases on policies in force or mitigated by our non-renewal or cancellation of insurance coverage. The premiums we charge, the investment income we earn and the amount of reinsurance we carry may not be adequate to compensate us for the risks and costs associated with the insurance coverage provided to customers. An increase in the number or size of claims, compared to what we anticipate, could adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition. Our premium rates are also based in part on the amount of capital we are required to hold against the insured risk. If the amount of capital we are required to hold increases from the amount we were required to hold when a policy was written, we cannot adjust premiums to compensate for this and our returns may be lower than we assumed.
The losses we have incurred on our 2005-2008 books of business have exceeded our premiums from those books. The incurred losses from those books, although declining, continue to generate a material portion of our total incurred losses. The ultimate amount of these losses will depend in part on general economic conditions, including unemployment, and the direction of home prices.
The premium from a single premium policy is collected upfront and generally earned over the estimated life of the policy. In contrast, premiums from a monthly premium policy are received and earned each month over the life of the policy. In each year, most of our premiums earned are from insurance that has been written in prior years. As a result, the length of time insurance remains in force, which is generally measured by persistency (the percentage of our insurance remaining in force from one year prior), is a significant determinant of our revenues. Future premiums on our monthly premium policies in force represent a material portion of our claims paying resources and a low persistency rate will reduce those future premiums. In contrast, a higher than expected persistency rate will decrease the profitability from single premium policies because they will remain in force longer than was estimated when the policies were written.
Our persistency rate was 81.7% at December 31, 2018, 80.1% at December 31, 2017 and 76.9% at December 31, 2016. Since 2000, our year-end persistency ranged from a high of 84.7% at December 31, 2009 to a low of 47.1% at December 31, 2003.
Our persistency rate is primarily affected by the level of current mortgage interest rates compared to the mortgage coupon rates on our insurance in force, which affects the vulnerability of the insurance in force to refinancing. Our persistency rate is also affected by the mortgage insurance cancellation policies of mortgage investors along with the current value of the homes underlying the mortgages in the insurance in force. In 2018, the GSEs announced changes to various mortgage insurance termination requirements that are intended to further simplify the process of evaluating borrower-initiated requests for mortgage insurance termination and may reduce our persistency rate in the future.
At December 31, 2018, we had approximately $248 million in cash and investments at our holding company and our holding company's debt obligations were $815 million in aggregate principal amount, consisting of $425 million of 5.75% Senior Notes due in 2023 ("5.75% Notes") and $390 million of 9% Debentures (of which approximately $133 million was purchased, and is held, by MGIC, and is eliminated on the consolidated balance sheet). Annual debt service on the 5.75% Notes and 9% Debentures outstanding as of December 31, 2018, is approximately $60 million (of which approximately $12 million will be paid to MGIC and will be eliminated on the consolidated statement of operations).
The 5.75% Senior Notes and 9% Debentures are obligations of our holding company, MGIC Investment Corporation, and not of its subsidiaries. The payment of dividends from our insurance subsidiaries which, other than investment income and raising capital in the public markets, is the principal source of our holding company cash inflow, is restricted by insurance regulation. MGIC is the principal source of dividend-paying capacity. In 2018 and 2017, MGIC paid a total of $220 million and $140 million, respectively, in dividends to our holding company. We expect MGIC to continue to pay quarterly dividends of at least the $60 million amount paid in the fourth quarter of 2018, subject to approval by its Board of Directors. We ask the OCI not to object before MGIC pays dividends.
On April 26, 2018, our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program under which we may repurchase up to $200 million of our common stock through the end of 2019. During 2018, we repurchased approximately 16.0 million shares of our common stock using approximately $175 million of holding company resources. Repurchases may be made from time to time on the open market or through privately negotiated transactions. The repurchase program may be suspended for periods or discontinued at any time. If any additional capital contributions to our subsidiaries were required, such contributions would decrease our holding company cash and investments. As described in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 11, 2016, MGIC borrowed $155 million from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago. This is an obligation of MGIC and not of our holding company.
At December 31, 2018, we had outstanding $390 million principal amount of 9% Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures due in 2063 ("9% Debentures") (of which approximately $133 million was purchased, and is held, by MGIC, and is eliminated on the consolidated balance sheet). The principal amount of the 9% Debentures is currently convertible, at the holder's option, at an initial conversion rate, which is subject to adjustment, of 74.0741 common shares per $1,000 principal amount of debentures. This represents an initial conversion price of approximately $13.50 per share. We may redeem the 9% Debentures in whole or in part from time to time, at our option, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the 9% Debentures being redeemed, plus any accrued and unpaid interest, if the closing sale price of our common stock exceeds $17.55 for at least 20 of the 30 trading days preceding notice of the redemption.
We have the right, and may elect, to defer interest payable under the debentures in the future. If a holder elects to convert its debentures, the interest that has been deferred on the debentures being converted is also convertible into shares of our common stock. The conversion rate for such deferred interest is based on the average price that our shares traded at during a 5-day period immediately prior to the election to convert the associated debentures. We may elect to pay cash for some or all of the shares issuable upon a conversion of the debentures.
For a discussion of the dilutive effects of our convertible securities on our earnings per share, see Note 6 – "Earnings Per Share" to our consolidated financial statements in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on November 7, 2018. As noted above, during 2018, we repurchased shares of our common stock and may do so in the future. In addition, we have in the past, and may in the future, purchase our debt securities.
As part of our business, we maintain large amounts of personal information on consumers. While we believe we have appropriate information security policies and systems to prevent unauthorized disclosure, there can be no assurance that unauthorized disclosure, either through the actions of third parties or employees, will not occur. Unauthorized disclosure could adversely affect our reputation, result in a loss of business and expose us to material claims for damages.
We rely on the efficient and uninterrupted operation of complex information technology systems. All information technology systems are potentially vulnerable to damage or interruption from a variety of sources, including through the actions of third parties. Due to our reliance on our information technology systems, their damage or interruption could severely disrupt our operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, business prospects and results of operations.
In addition, we are in the process of upgrading certain of our information systems that have been in place for a number of years and are implementing our loan level pricing system. The implementation of these technological improvements, as well as their integration with customer systems when applicable, is complex, expensive and time consuming. If we fail to timely and successfully implement and integrate the new technology systems, or if the systems do not operate as expected, it could have an adverse impact on our business, business prospects and results of operations.
Our investment portfolio is an important source of revenue and is our primary source of claims paying resources. Although our investment portfolio consists mostly of highly-rated fixed income investments, our investment portfolio is affected by general economic conditions and tax policy, which may adversely affect the markets for credit and interest-rate-sensitive securities, including the extent and timing of investor participation in these markets, the level and volatility of interest rates and credit spreads and, consequently, the value of our fixed income securities, and as such, we may not achieve our investment objectives. Volatility or lack of liquidity in the markets in which we hold securities has at times reduced the market value of some of our investments, and if this worsens substantially it could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.
For the significant portion of our investment portfolio that is held by MGIC, to receive full capital credit under insurance regulatory requirements and under the PMIERs, we generally are limited to investing in investment grade fixed income securities whose yields reflect their lower credit risk profile. Our investment income depends upon the size of the portfolio and its reinvestment at prevailing interest rates. A prolonged period of low investment yields would have an adverse impact on our investment income as would a decrease in the size of the portfolio.
In addition, we structure our investment portfolio to satisfy our expected liabilities, including claim payments in our mortgage insurance business. If we underestimate our liabilities or improperly structure our investments to meet these liabilities, we could have unexpected losses resulting from the forced liquidation of fixed income investments before their maturity, which could adversely affect our results of operations.
Our financial results may be adversely impacted by natural disasters; certain hurricanes may impact our incurred losses, the amount and timing of paid claims, our inventory of notices of default and our Minimum Required Assets under PMIERs.
Natural disasters, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires and floods, could trigger an economic downturn in the affected areas, which could result in a decline in our business and an increased claim rate on policies in those areas. Natural disasters could lead to a decrease in home prices in the affected areas, which could result in an increase in claim severity on policies in those areas. If we were to attempt to limit our new insurance written in disaster-prone areas, lenders may be unwilling to procure insurance from us anywhere.
Natural disasters could also lead to increased reinsurance rates or reduced availability of reinsurance. This may cause us to retain more risk than we otherwise would retain and could negatively affect our compliance with the financial requirements of the PMIERs.
Due to the suspension of certain foreclosures by the GSEs from time-to-time, our receipt of claims associated with foreclosed mortgages in hurricane-affected areas may be delayed.
The PMIERs require us to maintain significantly more "Minimum Required Assets" for delinquent loans than for performing loans; however, the increase in Minimum Required Assets is not as great for certain delinquent loans in areas that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has declared major disaster areas. An increase in delinquency notices resulting from hurricanes may result in an increase in "Minimum Required Assets" and a decrease in the level of our excess "Available Assets" which is discussed in our risk factor titled "We may not continue to meet the GSEs' private mortgage insurer eligibility requirements and our returns may decrease as we are required to maintain more capital in order to maintain our eligibility."


Charles Street Video (CSV) is a non-profit production organization established in 1981 to help support media artists. We provide affordable access to equipment and post-production editing facilities for creating videos, films, installations and other media art forms. We offer regular workshops, training sessions and residencies.
CSV also commissions artists to create new works, and sponsors a variety of youth-oriented production programs and post-secondary scholarships. We actively participate in local exhibitions of media art through our partnerships with arts organizations and grassroots festivals.
Charles Street Video fosters the creation of media art, encourages experimentation, and develops an artistic community and is Toronto's leading media arts production centre where emerging and established artists gather and achieve their artistic vision.
CSV is supported by its members, the Canada Council for the Arts, the Ontario Arts Council and the City of Toronto through the Toronto Arts Council for operating funding and by the Government of Canada through the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Ontario Trillium Foundation and the Canada Council for the Arts for capital funding.
Office: Weekdays 10 a.m. - 5 p.m.


text:
A Mirror for Witches
Esther Forbes
A Mirror for Witches A novel written in the s and set in the Salem witch hunting days A young girl is convinced by the spirit of the times that the accusation against her of witchcraft is true
Title: A Mirror for Witches
Author: Esther Forbes
A novel written in the 1920s and set in the Salem witch hunting days A young girl is convinced by the spirit of the times that the accusation against her of witchcraft is true.
Free Download [Self Help Book] ✓ A Mirror for Witches - by Esther Forbes ✓
Esther Forbes 158 Esther Forbes
Title: Free Download [Self Help Book] ✓ A Mirror for Witches - by Esther Forbes ✓
Posted by:Esther Forbes
About "Esther Forbes"
Esther Forbes was born in Westboro, Massachusetts in 1891, as the youngest of five children Her family roots can be traced back to 1600s America one of her great uncles was the great historical figure and leader of the Sons of Liberty, Sam Adams Her father was a probate judge in Worcester and her mother, a writer of New England reference books Both her parents were historical enthusiasts.Even as a little child, Forbes displayed an affinity for writing Her academic work, however, was not spectacular, except for a few writing classes After finishing high school, she took classes at the Worcester Art Museum and Boston University, and later, Bradford Academy, a junior college She then followed her sister to the University of Wisconsin where Forbes wrote extensively for the Wisconsin Literary Magazine After developing her writing skills, she returned to Massachusetts where she began working for Boston s Houghton Mifflin As a reader of manuscripts, Forbes used this experience to advance her own writing career Her first novel, O Genteel Lady was published in 1926 to critical praise With its selection by the newly formed Book of the Month Club, the novel gained popular appeal as well That year, Forbes also married Albert L Hoskins, Jr a Harvard Law School student.As Forbes continued to write and gain notoriety, her marriage suffered because her husband disapproved of her career They divorced in 1933 After several other novels, Forbes began her research of Paul Revere with her mother, who was then in her mid eighties When the historical biography, Paul Revere and the World He Lived In won the Pulitzer Prize in History, Forbes recognized her mother s immense contributions During the process of researching Paul Revere, Forbes became fascinated with the large role young apprentices played in the war Thus, she wrote Johnny Tremain, a historical novel of a young boy growing up in the time of the Revolutionary War With poignant character development and a keen sense of history, it contained the elements for lasting popularity It was published as A Novel for Old and Young In 1944, it won the Newberry Award, the top award for children s literature and became an instant children s classic Forbes continued to turn out award winning books, most notably, The Running of the Tide, which was commissioned as a movie but never filmed While working on a book about witchcraft in seventeenth century Massachusetts, she died in 1967 of rheumatic heart disease.Forbes literary achievements, awards, and recognition speak for themselves in regards her place in letters Johnny Tremain is still read widely in schools and its popularity makes it one of the few lasting classics of American children literature.
This is an absolutely fascinating story written in a style I haven't come across before. If you're a reader who likes reading about the Salem witch trials, you need to add this to your list pronto.Forbes wrote this book back in the late 1920's, but the style and "voice" she used for the narrative is so authentic to the 17th century that it's almost like reading a 350 year old manuscript. It's written in 3rd person, almost like a moral/religious text primer, with elaborate and long-sentenced chap [...]
A Mirror for Witches (1928) - Esther ForbesDark, powerful and wonderfully wrought! You're probably familiar with the author for her book Johnny Tremain, but i did not know of this book written 15 years earlier for older readers. Highly recommended. There is much here to discuss when read in a book group.========================================================================What follows aren't spoilers, but if you want to read thisbook knowing nothing before you start, then go do that.========== [...]
Tina Gauthier
Why is The Crucible the story of choice in HS? This is SO much better! I love how the author gives thoughts and feelings from various characters so it is not just a one-sided glimpse into this part of history.
Dick Baldwin
I found this novel more psychological than historical. Was Doll actually a witch, or was she led to believe it by jealous and superstitious people? Did she take a dæmon lover, or were unscrupulous men abusing her? This book is rich in horror and tragedy and interpretation. I recommend it highly. It gets better with each read.
I found an original copy from 1928 in an Antiquarian book store. It's absolutely incredible how graphic it is for a book written in 1928. Esther was a well educated woman. I plan on seeking her other writings out.
Allyson Shaw
I re-read this on one sitting- I could not put it down. Nothing short of a work of genius- a lively, vivid and strange use of an unreliable "omniscient" narrator. Why is this book not more widely read?
I'd like a copy of this but it is very difficult to find.
A dark, atmospheric, psychological tale with a vividly crafted sense of time and place.
The story is interesting. It is a little hard to get past the archaic language, I often had to re-read a paragraph to understand the gist, but that also added to the authenticity of the story.
E.N. McMahon
This is a superb and curious novel, set in Salem, 1600s. Written in the style of a 17th century tract, the book tells the story of Doll Bilby, an orphan whose parents were both burned as witches. Is Doll a witch? Does she become the witch her accusers believe her to be? Or is everything explainable in modern terms so obvious to us now? The genius of this thought-provoking book is to provide a narrative in which each episode sustains multiple interpretations: psychological; demonic; sexual. Told [...]
I gave this book such a high rating because I could not put it down. I had a running commentary in the back of my head based in modern ideology, but it was an interesting look into a world-view completely different from my own.
Rebecca Radnor
Great read, historical as well as deeply though-provoking.
another book I got from QPBC in high school.
A compelling story. Forbes' skills get the reader to like the main character despite the narrator's prejudices.
The Flamingo Feather
Cainite Heresy: A Sourcebook of Blasphmeous Horror...
*OP Giovanni IV Nuova Malattia (Vampire: The Masqu...
Runaway Bullet
பள்ளியில் ஒரு நாய்...
Introduction to Mindfulness
How to Perform On-The-Job Training
An Introduction to Family Therapy
Thief of Lies
Driving Demand: Transforming B2B Marketing to Meet...
Fagin's Boy
His Naughty Little Human
Cosas que pasan cada día
علم اللغة الجغرافي السنن ال...
The Reluctant Lady
How to Shoot Your Father

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN
In 2017, Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN had a population of 114k people with a median age of 39.3 and a median household income of $101,384. Between 2016 and 2017 the population of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN grew from 112,030 to 113,969, a 1.73% increase and its median household income grew from $96,114 to $101,384, a 5.48% increase.
The population of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN is 79.6% White Alone, 8.96% Asian Alone, and 5.18% Black or African American Alone. 14.9% of the people in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN speak a non-English language, and 95.1% are U.S. citizens.
The largest universities in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN are PCI Academy-Plymouth (55 degrees awarded in 2017) and Minnesota School of Cosmetology-Plymouth Campus (35 degrees).
The median property value in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN is $331,900, and the homeownership rate is 76.3%. Most people in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN commute by Drove Alone, and the average commute time is 22.9 minutes. The average car ownership in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN is 2 cars per household.
Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN borders Edina, St. Louis Park & Hopkins Cities PUMA, MN, Champlin, Rogers Cities & Lake Minnetonka PUMA, MN, Eden Prairie & Minnetonka Cities PUMA, MN, Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove (East) & Osseo Cities PUMA, MN, and Brooklyn Center, Golden Valley, New Hope & Robbinsdale Cities PUMA, MN.
The economy of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN employs 60k people. The largest industries in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN are Elementary & secondary schools (3,712 people), Hospitals (2,717 people), and Computer Systems Design (2,511 people), and the highest paying industries are Animal slaughtering & processing ($247,456), Offices of physicians ($207,741), and Securities, commodities, funds, trusts & other financial investments ($199,306).
Median household income in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN is $101,384. Males in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN have an average income that is 1.56 times higher than the average income of females, which is $70,591. The income inequality in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN (measured using the Gini index) is 0.472, which is lower than than the national average.
Households in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN have a median annual income of $101,384, which is more than the median annual income of $61,937 across the entire United States. This is in comparison to a median income of $96,114 in 2016, which represents a 5.48% annual growth.
Look at the chart to see how the median household income in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN compares to that of it's neighboring and parent geographies.
In 2017, full-time male employees in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN made 1.56 times more than female employees.
This chart shows the gender-based wage disparity in the 5 most common occupations in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN by number of full-time employees.
In 2017 the highest paid race/ethnicity of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN workers was Asian. These workers were paid 1.09 times more than White workers, who made the second highest salary of any race/ethnicity.
This chart shows the race- and ethnicity-based wage disparities in the 5 most common occupations in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN by number of full-time employees.
In 2017, the income inequality in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN was 0.472 according to the GINI calculation of the wage distribution. Income inequality had a 1.7% decline from 2016 to 2017, which means that wage distribution grew somewhat more even.
The 2017 the GINI for Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN was lower than than the national average of 0.479. In other words, wages are distributed more evenly in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN in comparison to the national average.
This chart shows the number of workers in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN across various wage buckets compared to the national average.
Champlin, Rogers Cities & Lake Minnetonka PUMA, MN
Shakopee, Savage & Prior Lake Cities PUMA, MN
In 2018, the PUMA with the highest Median Household Income (Total) in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN was Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN with a value of $111,269, followed by Champlin, Rogers Cities & Lake Minnetonka PUMA, MN and Shakopee, Savage & Prior Lake Cities PUMA, MN, with respective values of $105,199 and $102,930.
The following map shows all of the PUMAs in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN colored by their Median Household Income (Total).
4.94% of the population for whom poverty status is determined in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN (5.58k out of 113k people) live below the poverty line, a number that is lower than the national average of 13.1%. The largest demographic living in poverty are Females 35 - 44, followed by Females 25 - 34 and then Females 6 - 11.
The most common racial or ethnic group living below the poverty line in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN is White, followed by Black and Asian.
From 2016 to 2017, employment in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN grew at a rate of 1.94%, from 58.9k employees to 60k employees.
The most common job groups, by number of people living in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN, are Miscellaneous managers (2,974 people), Accountants & auditors (1,750 people), and Software developers, applications & systems software (1,746 people). This chart illustrates the share breakdown of the primary jobs held by residents of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN.
The most common jobs held by residents of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN, by number of employees, are Miscellaneous managers (2,974 people), Accountants & auditors (1,750 people), and Software developers, applications & systems software (1,746 people).
Compared to other pumas, Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN has an unusually high number of residents working as Compliance officers (4.37 times higher than expected), Psychologists (4.22 times), and Medical scientists, & life scientists, all other (4.12 times).
The highest paid jobs held by residents of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN, by average salary, are Physicians & surgeons ($256,511), Lawyers, & judges, magistrates, & other judicial workers ($233,381), and Advertising sales agents ($203,174).
The most common employment sectors for those who live in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN, are Elementary & secondary schools (3,712 people), Hospitals (2,717 people), and Computer Systems Design (2,511 people). This chart shows the share breakdown of the primary industries for residents of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN, though some of these residents may live in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN and work somewhere else. Census data is tagged to a residential address, not a work address.
The most common industries in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN, by number of employees, are Elementary & secondary schools (3,712 people), Hospitals (2,717 people), and Computer Systems Design (2,511 people).
Compared to other pumas, Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN has an unusually high number of Animal food, grain & oilseed milling (9.19 times higher than expected), Medical equipment & supplies manufacturing (7.74 times), and Navigational, measuring, electromedical, & control instruments manufacturing (4.79 times) industries.
The highest paying industries in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN, by average salary, are Animal slaughtering & processing ($247,456), Offices of physicians ($207,741), and Securities, commodities, funds, trusts & other financial investments ($199,306).
96.7% of the population of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN has health coverage, with 68.6% on employee plans, 6.5% on Medicaid, 9.55% on Medicare, 11.5% on non-group plans, and 0.495% on military or VA plans.
Per capita personal health care spending in the puma of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN was $8,871 in 2014. This is a 4.8% increase from the previous year ($8,465).
Primary care physicians in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN see 1111 patients per year on average, which represents a 0.634% increase from the previous year (1104 patients). Compare this to dentists who see 1441 patients per year, and mental health providers who see 468 patients per year.
Between N/A and 2016, the percent of uninsured citizens in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN stayed by NaNk% from N/A% to 3.34%.
The following chart shows how the percent of uninsured individuals in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN changed over time compared with the percent of individuals enrolled in various types of health insurance.
Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN is home to a population of 114k people, from which 95.1% are citizens. As of 2016, 12.6% of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN residents were born outside of the country (14.1k people).
The ethnic composition of the population of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN is composed of 90.7k White Alone residents (79.6%), 10.2k Asian Alone residents (8.96%), 5.91k Black or African American Alone residents (5.18%), 3.91k Hispanic or Latino residents (3.43%), 2.67k Two or More Races residents (2.34%), 284 American Indian & Alaska Native Alone residents (0.249%), 238 Some Other Race Alone residents (0.209%), and 6 Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander Alone residents (0.00526%).
The most common foreign languages spoken in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN are Spanish (3,082 speakers), Chinese (Incl. Mandarin, Cantonese) (1,486 speakers), and Russian (1,420 speakers).
In 2017, the median age of all people in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN was 39.3. Native-born citizens, with a median age of 39, were generally younger than than foreign-born citizens, with a median age of 41. But people in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN are getting getting older. In 2016, the average age of all Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN residents was 39.
As of 2016, 12.6% of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN residents (14.1k people) were born outside of the United States, which is lower than the national average of 13.7%. In 2015, the percentage of foreign-born citizens in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN was 12.3%, meaning that the rate has been increasing.
The following chart shows the percentage of foreign-born residents in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN compared to that of it's neighboring and parent geographies.
1,007 ± 776 people
In 2017, the most common birthplace for the foreign-born residents of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN was India, the natal country of 3,995 Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN residents, followed by China with 1,007 and Vietnam with 979.
As of 2017, 95.1% of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN residents were US citizens, which is higher than the national average of 93.2%. In 2016, the percentage of US citizens in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN was 94.6%, meaning that the rate of citizenship has been increasing.
The following chart shows US citizenship percentages in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN compared to that of it's neighboring and parent geographies.
5.91k ± 1.01k
In 2017, there were 8.88 times more White Alone residents (90.7k people) in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN than any other race or ethnicity. There were 10.2k Asian Alone and 5.91k Black or African American Alone residents, the second and third most common racial or ethnic groups.
The following bar chart shows the 8 races and ethnicities represented in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN as a share of the total population.
Chinese (Incl. Mandarin, Cantonese)
14.9% of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN citizens are speakers of a non-English language, which is lower than the national average of 21.9%. In 2017, the most common non-English language spoken in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN was Spanish. 2.9% of the overall population of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN are native Spanish speakers. 1.4% speak Chinese (Incl. Mandarin, Cantonese) and 1.34% speak Spanish, the next two most common languages.
Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN has a large population of military personnel who served in Vietnam, 3.29 times greater than any other conflict.
In 2017, universities in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN awarded 90 degrees. The student population of Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN is skewed towards women, with 5 male students and 190 female students.
Most students graduating from Universities in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN are White (66 and 73.3%), followed by Black or African American (8 and 8.89%), Asian (6 and 6.67%), and Hispanic or Latino (5 and 5.56%).
The largest universities in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN by number of degrees awarded are PCI Academy-Plymouth (55 and 61.1%) and Minnesota School of Cosmetology-Plymouth Campus (35 and 38.9%).
The most popular majors in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN are General Cosmetology (74 and 82.2%), Aesthetician & Skin Care Specialist (9 and 10%), and Nail Specialist & Manicurist (7 and 7.78%).
The median tuition costs in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN are $N/A for private four year colleges, and $N/A and $N/A respectively, for public four year colleges for in-state students and out-of-state students.
< 1 Year Postsecondary Certificate1 to 2 Year Postsecondary Certificate
In 2015, the most common concentation for 1 to 2 Year Postsecondary Certificate recipients in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN was General Cosmetology with 74 degrees awarded.
This visualization illustrates the percentage of students graduating with a 1 to 2 Year Postsecondary Certificate from schools in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN according to their major.
PCI Academy-Plymouth
In 2017, the Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN institution with the largest number of graduating students was PCI Academy-Plymouth with 55 degrees awarded.
In 2017, 3 men were awarded degrees from institutions in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN, which is 0.0345 times less than the 87 female students who received degrees in the same year.
This chart displays the gender disparity between the institutions in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN by degrees awarded.
In 2017 the majority of degrees awarded at institutions in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN were to White students. These 66 degrees mean that there were 8.25 times more White students then the next closest race/ethnicity group, Black or African American, with 8 degrees awarded.
The median property value in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN was $331,900 in 2017, which is 1.44 times larger than the national average of $229,700. Between 2016 and 2017 the median property value increased from $318,700 to $331,900, a 4.14% increase. The homeownership rate in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN is 76.3%, which is higher than the national average of 63.9%. People in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN have an average commute time of 22.9 minutes, and they commute by Drove Alone. Car ownership in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN is approximately the same as the national average, with an average of 2 cars per household.
In 2017, the median property value in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN grew to to $331,900 from the previous year's value of $318,700.
The following charts display, first, the property values in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN compared to it's parent and neighbor geographies and, second, owner-occupied housing units distributed between a series of property value buckets compared to the national averages for each bucket. In Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN the largest share of households have a property value in the $300k - $400k range.
In 2017, the median household income of the 44.3k households in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN grew to $101,384 from the previous year's value of $96,114.
The following chart displays the households in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN distributed between a series of income buckets compared to the national averages for each bucket. The largest share of households have an income in the $200k+ range.
This chart shows the households in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN distributed between a series of property tax buckets compared to the national averages for each bucket. In Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN the largest share of households pay taxes in the $3k+ range.
In 2017, 76.3% of the housing units in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN were occupied by their owner. This percentage grew from the previous year's rate of 75.7%.
This percentage of owner-occupation is higher than the national average of 63.9%. This chart shows the ownership percentage in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN compared it's parent and neighboring geographies.
Using averages, employees in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN have a shorter commute time (22.9 minutes) than the normal US worker (25.1 minutes). Additionally, 0.994% of the workforce in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN have "super commutes" in excess of 90 minutes.
The chart below shows how the median household income in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN compares to that of it's neighboring and parent geographies.
In 2017, the most common method of travel for workers in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN was Drove Alone (82.3%), followed by those who Worked At Home (6.96%) and those who Carpooled (5.88%).
The following chart displays the households in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN distributed between a series of car ownership buckets compared to the national averages for each bucket. The largest share of households in Plymouth, Maple Grove (West) & Medicine Lake Cities PUMA, MN have 2 cars, followed by 3 cars.
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
Hennepin County, MN
Edina, St. Louis Park & Hopkins Cities PUMA, MN


Dear sir,my weight is 68kg and my arm size is 13.5 in without pump so i want to gain my arm size as well chest so tell me how to achieve my goals.Give me diet n workout schedule n mainly suggest me which protein brand n which protein should i take.
I've linked several articles for you. Please follow these exercises for your chest and arms development. Brand doesn't matter. Value does. I would suggest MuscleBlaze.