Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

For the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2008

OR

transition Period from                                  to                                 

Commission File No. 001-32141

ASSURED GUARANTY LTD.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

30 Woodbourne Avenue

Hamilton HM 08

Bermuda

(address of principal executive office)

(441) 299-9375

(Registrants telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

YES   x         NO   o

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

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

The number of registrant’s Common Shares ($0.01 par value) outstanding as of October 31, 2008 was 90,949,662.

Table of Contents

ASSURED GUARANTY LTD.

INDEX TO FORM 10-Q

2

Table of Contents

PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements

Assured Guaranty Ltd.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(in thousands of U.S. dollars except per share and share amounts)

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

Assured Guaranty Ltd.

Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income

(in thousands of U.S. dollars except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

Assured Guaranty Ltd.

Consolidated Statements of Shareholders’ Equity

For Nine Months Ended September 30, 2008

(in thousands of U.S. dollars except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

Assured Guaranty Ltd.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(in thousands of U.S. dollars)

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

6

Table of Contents

Assured Guaranty Ltd.
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

September 30, 2008

(Unaudited)

1.  Business and Organization

Assured Guaranty Ltd. (the “Company”) is a Bermuda-based holding company which provides, through its operating subsidiaries, credit enhancement products to the public finance, structured finance and mortgage markets. Credit enhancement products are financial guarantees or other types of support, including credit derivatives, that improve the credit of underlying debt obligations. The Company issues policies in both financial guaranty and credit derivative form. Assured Guaranty Ltd. applies its credit expertise, risk management skills and capital markets experience to develop insurance, reinsurance and derivative products that meet the credit enhancement needs of its customers. Under a reinsurance agreement, the reinsurer, in consideration of a premium paid to it, agrees to indemnify another insurer, called the ceding company, for part or all of the liability of the ceding company under one or more insurance policies that the ceding company has issued. A derivative is a financial instrument whose characteristics and value depend upon the characteristics and value of an underlying security. Assured Guaranty Ltd. markets its products directly to and through financial institutions, serving the U.S. and international markets. Assured Guaranty Ltd.’s financial results include four principal business segments: financial guaranty direct, financial guaranty reinsurance, mortgage guaranty and other. These segments are further discussed in Note 13.

Financial guaranty insurance provides an unconditional and irrevocable guaranty that protects the holder of a financial obligation against non-payment of principal and interest when due. Financial guaranty insurance may be issued to the holders of the insured obligations at the time of issuance of those obligations, or may be issued in the secondary market to holders of public bonds and structured securities. A loss event occurs upon existing or anticipated credit deterioration, while a payment under a policy occurs when the insured obligation defaults. This requires the Company to pay the required principal and interest when due in accordance with the underlying contract. The principal types of obligations covered by the Company’s financial guaranty direct and financial guaranty assumed reinsurance businesses are structured finance obligations and public finance obligations. Because both businesses involve similar risks, the Company analyzes and monitors its financial guaranty direct portfolio and financial guaranty assumed reinsurance portfolio on a unified process and procedure basis.

Mortgage guaranty insurance is a specialized class of credit insurance that provides protection to mortgage lending institutions against the default of borrowers on mortgage loans that, at the time of the advance, had a loan to value in excess of a specified ratio. Reinsurance in the mortgage guaranty insurance industry is used to increase the insurance capacity of the ceding company, to assist the ceding company in meeting applicable regulatory and rating agency requirements, to augment the financial strength of the ceding company, and to manage the ceding company’s risk profile. The Company provides mortgage guaranty protection on an excess of loss basis.

The Company has participated in several lines of business that are reflected in its historical financial statements but that the Company exited in connection with its 2004 initial public offering (“IPO”). The results from these lines of business are included in the Company’s Other segment discussed in Note 13.

On April 8, 2008, investment funds managed by WL Ross & Co. LLC (“WL Ross”) purchased 10,651,896 shares of the Company’s common equity at a price of $23.47 per share, resulting in proceeds to the Company of $250.0 million. The Company contributed $150.0 million of these proceeds to its Bermuda domiciled reinsurance subsidiary, Assured Guaranty Re Ltd. (“AG Re”). In addition, the Company contributed $100.0 million of these proceeds to its subsidiary, Assured Guaranty US Holdings Inc., which in turn contributed the same amount to its Maryland domiciled insurance subsidiary, Assured Guaranty Corp. (“AGC”). The commitment to purchase these shares was previously announced on February 29, 2008. In addition, Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of WL Ross, was appointed to the Board of Directors of the Company to serve a term expiring at the Company’s 2009 annual general meeting of shareholders. Mr. Ross’s appointment became effective immediately following the Company’s 2008 annual general meeting of shareholders, which was held on May 8, 2008. WL Ross has a remaining commitment through April 8, 2009 to purchase up to $750.0 million of the Company’s common equity, at the Company’s option, subject to the terms and conditions of the investment agreement with the Company

7

Table of Contents

dated February 28, 2008. In accordance with the investment agreement, the Company may exercise this option in one or more drawdowns, subject to a minimum drawdown of $50 million, provided that the purchase price per common share for the subsequent shares is not greater than 17.5% above, or less than 17.5% below, the price per common share for the initial shares. The purchase price per common share for such shares will be equal to 97% of the volume weighted average price of a common share on the NYSE for the 15 NYSE trading days prior to the applicable drawdown notice. As of September 30, 2008, and as of the date of this filing, the purchase price per common share is outside of this range and therefore the Company may not, at this time, exercise its option for WL Ross to purchase additional shares. Additionally, in accordance with the investment agreement, at this time the  ratings of the Company’s operating subsidiaries, AGC and AG Re, are not “stable” (See Note 16) and therefore the Company may not exercise its option for WL Ross to purchase additional shares.

On September 16, 2008, the Company agreed to waive the standstill provisions of the investment agreement to permit investment funds managed by WL Ross (the “WL Ross Funds”) to purchase up to 5,000,000 additional common shares of the Company in open market transactions from time to time. The timing and amount of any such purchases are in the sole discretion of WL Ross and they are not obligated to purchase any such shares. The additional shares purchased by the WL Ross Funds, if any, will be purchased from current shareholders and therefore will not result in an increase in shareholders’ equity at the Company or its subsidiaries. If all 5,000,000 additional shares were purchased, the WL Ross Funds would beneficially own 17,166,396 shares or approximately 18.9% of the Company’s outstanding common shares based on shares outstanding as of September 30, 2008. As of the date of this filing, the Company has not been notified that WL Ross Funds purchased any additional shares of the Company.

The Company’s subsidiaries have been assigned the following insurance financial strength ratings:

On July 21, 2008, Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) placed under review for possible downgrade the Aaa insurance financial strength ratings of Assured Guaranty Corp. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Assured Guaranty (UK) Ltd., as well as the Aa2 insurance financial strength ratings of Assured Guaranty Re Ltd. and its affiliated insurance operating companies. Moody’s has also placed under review for possible downgrade the Aa3 senior unsecured rating of parent company, Assured Guaranty US Holdings Inc. and the Aa3 issuer rating of the ultimate holding company, Assured Guaranty Ltd. The timing and outcome of the Moody’s review are uncertain. (See Note 16). As of the date of this filing, the Company’s rating outlook is categorized as stable from both S&P and Fitch.

2.  Basis of Presentation

The unaudited interim consolidated financial statements, which include the accounts of the Company, have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and, in the opinion of management, reflect all adjustments, which are of a normal recurring nature, necessary for a fair statement of the Company’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. These unaudited interim consolidated financial statements cover the three-month period ended September 30, 2008 (“Third Quarter 2008”),  the three-month period ended September 30, 2007 (“Third Quarter 2007”), the nine-month period ended September 30, 2008 (“Nine Months 2008”) and the nine-month period ended September 30, 2007 (“Nine Months 2007”). Operating results for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2008 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for a full year. These unaudited interim consolidated financial statements should be read in

8

Table of Contents

conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries are subject to U.S. and U.K. income tax. The provision for income taxes is calculated in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“FAS”) FAS No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes”. The Company’s provision for income taxes for interim financial periods is not based on an estimated annual effective rate due to the variability in changes in fair value of its credit derivatives, which prevents the Company from projecting a reliable estimated annual effective tax rate and pre-tax income for the full year of 2008. A discrete calculation of the provision is calculated for each interim period.

Reclassifications

Certain prior year items have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation.

Effective with the quarter ended March 31, 2008, the Company reclassified the revenues, expenses and balance sheet items associated with financial guaranty contracts that the Company’s financial guaranty subsidiaries write in the form of credit default swap (“CDS”) contracts. The reclassification does not change the Company’s net income (loss) or shareholders’ equity. This reclassification is being adopted by the Company after agreement with member companies of the Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers in consultation with the staffs of the Office of the Chief Accountant and the Division of Corporate Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The reclassification is being implemented in order to increase comparability of the Company’s financial statements with other financial guaranty companies that have CDS contracts.

In general, the Company structures credit derivative transactions such that the method for making loss payments is similar to that for financial guaranty policies and generally occurs as losses are realized on the underlying reference obligation. Nonetheless, credit derivative transactions are governed by International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”) documentation and operates differently from financial guaranty insurance policies. Under GAAP CDS contracts are subject to derivative accounting rules and financial guaranty policies are subject to insurance accounting rules.

In the accompanying unaudited interim consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, the Company has reclassified previously reported CDS revenues from “net earned premiums” to “realized gains and other settlements on credit derivatives.”  Loss and loss adjustment expenses and recoveries that were previously included in “loss and loss adjustment expenses (recoveries)” have been reclassified to “realized gains and other settlements on credit derivatives,” as well. Portfolio and case loss and loss adjustment expenses have been reclassified from “loss and loss adjustment expenses (recoveries)” and are included in “unrealized gains (losses) on credit derivatives,” which previously included only unrealized mark to market gains or losses on the Company’s contracts written in CDS form. In the consolidated balance sheet, the Company reclassified all CDS-related balances previously included in “unearned premium reserves,” “reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses,” “prepaid reinsurance premiums,” “premiums receivable” and “reinsurance balances payable” to either “credit derivative liabilities” or “credit derivative assets,” depending on the net position of the CDS contract at each balance sheet date.

The effects of these reclassifications on the Company’s consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income and cash flows for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007 are as follows (dollars in thousands):

9

Table of Contents

These adjustments had no impact on net income (loss), comprehensive income (loss), earnings (loss) per share, cash flows or total shareholders’ equity.

3.  Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued FAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (“FAS 157”). FAS 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and

10

Table of Contents

expands disclosures about fair value measurements. FAS 157 applies to other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements, since the FASB had previously concluded in those accounting pronouncements that fair value is the relevant measure. Accordingly, FAS 157 does not require any new fair value measurements. FAS 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company adopted FAS 157 effective January 1, 2008. See Note 14.

In February 2007, the FASB issued FAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Liabilities” (“FAS 159”). FAS 159 allows entities to voluntarily choose, at specified election dates, to measure many financial assets and financial liabilities (as well as certain nonfinancial instruments that are similar to financial instruments) at fair value (the “fair value option”). The election is made on an instrument-by-instrument basis and is irrevocable. If the fair value option is elected for an instrument, FAS 159 specifies that all subsequent changes in fair value for that instrument shall be reported in the Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income. FAS 159 is effective as of the beginning of an entity’s first fiscal year that begins after November 15, 2007. The Company adopted FAS 159 effective January 1, 2008. The Company did not apply the fair value option to any eligible items on its adoption date.

In April 2007, the FASB Staff issued FASB Staff Position No. FIN 39-1, “Amendment of FASB Interpretation No. 39” (“FSP FIN 39-1”), which permits companies to offset cash collateral receivables or payables with net derivative positions under certain circumstances. FSP FIN 39-1 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, with early adoption permitted. FSP FIN 39-1 did not affect the Company’s results of operations or financial position.

In March 2008, the FASB issued FAS No. 161, “Disclosures About Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities – An Amendment of FASB Statement No. 133” (“FAS 161”). FAS 161 establishes the disclosure requirements for derivative instruments and for hedging activities. FAS 161 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008. Early application is encouraged. FAS 161 is not expected to have an impact on the Company’s current results of operations or financial position.

In May 2008, the FASB issued FAS No. 163, “Accounting for Financial Guarantee Insurance Contracts – An Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 60” (“FAS 163”). FAS 163 requires that an insurance enterprise recognize a claim liability prior to an event of default (insured event) when there is evidence that credit deterioration has occurred in an insured financial obligation. FAS 163 also clarifies the methodology to be used for financial guaranty premium revenue recognition and claim liability measurement, as well as requiring expanded disclosures about the insurance enterprise’s risk management activities. The provisions of FAS 163 related to premium revenue recognition and claim liability measurement are effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008, and all interim periods within those fiscal years. Earlier application of these provisions is not permitted. The expanded risk management activity disclosure provisions of FAS 163 are effective for the third quarter of 2008 and are included in Note 6 of these financial statements. FAS 163 will be applied to all existing and future financial guaranty insurance contracts written by the Company. The cumulative effect of initially applying FAS 163 will be recorded as an adjustment to retained earnings as of January 1, 2009. The adoption of FAS 163 is expected to have a material effect on the Company’s financial statements. The Company is in the process of estimating the impact of its adoption of FAS 163. The Company will continue to follow its existing accounting policies in regards to premium revenue recognition and claim liability measurement until it adopts FAS 163 on January 1, 2009.

In June 2008, the FASB issued FSP EITF 03-6-1, “Participating Securities and the Two-Class Method under FASB Statement No. 128” (“FSP”). The FSP addresses whether instruments granted in share-based payment transactions are participating securities prior to vesting and therefore need to be included in the earnings allocation in calculating earnings per share (“EPS”) under the two-class method described in FAS No. 128, “Earnings per Share.” The FSP requires companies to treat unvested share-based payment awards that have non-forfeitable rights to dividend or dividend equivalents as a separate class of securities in calculating earnings per share. The FSP is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008; earlier application is not permitted. This FSP also requires that all prior period EPS data be adjusted retrospectively. The Company does not expect adoption of the FSP to have a material effect on its results of operations or earnings per share.

11

Table of Contents

On October 10, 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. 157-3, “Determining the Fair Value of a Financial Asset When the Market for That Asset Is Not Active” (“FSP 157-3”). FSP 157-3 clarified the application of FAS 157, “Fair Value Measurements”, in a market that is not active. FSP 157-3 was effective when issued. It did not have an impact on the Company’s current results of operations or financial position.

The FASB adopted FSP FAS 133-1, “Disclosures About Credit Derivatives and Certain Guarantees” and FAS 161, “Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities” to address concerns that current derivative disclosure requirements did not adequately address the potential adverse effects that these instruments can have on the financial performance and operations of an entity. Companies will be required to provide enhanced disclosures about their derivative activities to enable users to better understand: (1) how and why a company uses derivatives, (2) how it accounts for derivatives and related hedged items, and (3) how derivatives affect its financial statements. These should include the terms of the derivatives, collateral posting requirements and triggers, and other significant provisions that could be detrimental to earnings or liquidity. Disclosures specific to credit derivatives must be included in the December 31, 2008 financial statements. Certain other derivative and hedging disclosures must be included in the Company’s March 31, 2009 Form 10-Q. Management believes that the Company’s current derivatives disclosures are in compliance with the items required by FSP 133-1 and FAS 161.

4.  Credit Derivatives

Credit derivatives issued by the Company, principally in the form of CDS contracts, have been deemed to meet the definition of a derivative under FAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities” (“FAS 133”), FAS No. 149, “Amendment of Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities” (“FAS 149”) and FAS No. 155, “Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments” (“FAS 155”). FAS 133, FAS 149 and FAS 155 (which the Company adopted on January 1, 2007) establish accounting and reporting standards for derivative instruments, including certain derivative instruments embedded in other contracts (collectively referred to as derivatives), and for hedging activities. FAS 133 and FAS 149 require that an entity recognize all derivatives as either assets or liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets and measure those instruments at fair value. If certain conditions are met, a derivative may be specifically designated as a fair value, cash flow or foreign currency hedge. FAS 155 requires companies to recognize freestanding or embedded derivatives relating to beneficial interests in securitized financial instruments. This recognition was not required prior to January 1, 2007. The accounting for changes in the fair value of a derivative depends on the intended use of the derivative and the resulting designation. The Company had no derivatives that were designated as hedges during 2008 and 2007.

Realized gains and other settlements on credit derivatives include credit derivative premiums received and receivable for credit protection the Company has sold under its insured CDS as well as any contractual claim losses paid and payable related to insured credit events under these contracts, ceding commissions (expense) income and realized gains or losses related to their early termination. The Company generally holds credit derivative contracts to maturity. However, in certain circumstances such as for risk management purposes or as a result of a decision to exit a line of business, the Company may decide to terminate a credit derivative contract prior to maturity.

The following table disaggregates realized gains and other settlements on credit derivatives into its component parts for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2008 and 2007 (dollars in thousands):

Unrealized gains (losses) on credit derivatives represent the adjustments for changes in fair value that are

12

Table of Contents

recorded in each reporting period, under FAS 133. Changes in unrealized gains and losses on credit derivatives are reflected in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income in unrealized gains (losses) on credit derivatives. Cumulative unrealized losses, determined on a contract by contract basis, are reflected as liabilities in the Company’s balance sheets. Cumulative unrealized gains, determined on a contract by contract basis, are reflected as assets. Unrealized gains and losses resulting from changes in the fair value of credit derivatives occur because of changes in interest rates, credit spreads, the credit ratings of the referenced entities and the issuing Company’s own credit rating and other market factors. The unrealized gains and losses on credit derivatives will reduce to zero as the exposure approaches its maturity date, unless there is a payment default on the exposure. Changes in the fair value of the Company’s credit derivative contracts do not reflect actual claims or credit losses, and have no impact on the Company’s claims paying resources, rating agency capital or regulatory capital positions.

The Company determines fair value of its credit derivative contracts primarily through modeling that uses various inputs such as credit spreads, based on observable market indices and on recent pricing for similar contracts, and expected contractual life to derive an estimate of the value of our contracts in our principal market (see Note 14). Credit spreads captures the impact of performance of underlying assets, among other factors, on these contracts. The Company’s pricing model takes into account not only how credit spreads on risks that it assumes affects pricing, but how the Company’s own credit spread affects the pricing of its deals. If credit spreads of the underlying obligations change, the fair value of the related credit derivative changes. Market liquidity could also impact valuations of the underlying obligations.

The impact of changes in credit spreads will vary based upon the volume, tenor, interest rates, and other market conditions at the time these fair values are determined. In addition, since each transaction has unique collateral and structure terms, the underlying change in fair value of each transaction may vary considerably. The fair value of credit derivative contracts also reflects the change in the Company’s own credit cost based on the price to purchase credit protection on AGC. During Third Quarter 2008 and Nine Months 2008, the Company incurred net pre-tax mark-to-market losses on credit derivative contracts of $(116.2) million and gains of $332.6 million, respectively. The Third Quarter loss includes a gain of $668.0 million associated with the change in AGC’s credit spread, which widened substantially from 900 basis points at June 30, 2008 to 1,255 basis points at September 30, 2008. Management believes that the widening of AGC’s credit spread is  due to the correlation between AGC’s risk profile and that experienced currently by the broader financial markets. Offsetting the gain attributable to the significant increase in AGC’s credit spread were declines in fixed income security market prices primarily attributable to widening spreads in certain markets as a result of the continued deterioration in credit markets and some credit rating downgrades, rather than from delinquencies or defaults on securities guaranteed by the Company. The higher credit spreads in the fixed income security market are due to the recent lack of liquidity in the high yield collateralized debt obligation and collateralized loan obligation markets as well as continuing market concerns over the most recent vintages of subprime residential mortgage backed securities.

The total notional amount of credit derivative exposure outstanding as of September 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007 and included in the Company’s financial guaranty exposure was $77.6 billion and $71.6 billion, respectively.

The components of the Company’s unrealized gain (loss) on credit derivatives as of September 30, 2008 are:

13

Table of Contents

Corporate collateralized loan obligations, market value CDO’s, and trust preferred securities, which comprise the Company’s pooled corporate exposures, include all U.S. structured finance pooled corporate obligations and international pooled corporate obligations. Commercial mortgage-backed securities is comprised of commercial U.S. structured finance and commercial international mortgage backed securities. Residential mortgage-backed securities is comprised of prime and subprime U.S. mortgage-backed and home equity securities, international residential mortgage-backed and international home equity securities. Other includes all other U.S. and international asset classes, such as commercial receivables, and international infrastructure and pooled infrastructure securities.

The Company’s exposure to pooled corporate obligations is highly diversified in terms of obligors and industries.  Most pooled corporate transactions are structured to limit exposure to any given obligor and industry.  The majority of the Company's pooled corporate exposure in the direct segment consists of collateralized loan obligations (“CLOs”).  Most of these direct CLOs have an average obligor size of less than 1% and typically restrict the maximum exposure to any one industry to approximately 10%.  The Company's exposure also benefits from embedded credit enhancement in the transactions which allows it to sustain a certain level of losses in the underlying collateral, further insulating the Company from industry specific concentrations of credit risk on these deals.

The Company’s $10.6 billion exposure to Other CDS contracts is also highly diversified. It includes $5.0 billion of exposure to four pooled infrastructure deals comprised of diversified pools of international infrastructure project transactions and loans to regulated utilities. These pools were all structured with underlying enhancement sufficient for the Company to attach at super senior AAA levels. The remaining $5.6 billion of exposure in Other CDS contracts is comprised of numerous deals typically structured with significant underlying enhancement and spread across various asset classes, such as commercial receivables, infrastructure, regulated utilities and consumer receivables. Substantially all of this $10.6 billion of exposure is rated investment grade and the weighted average credit rating is AA+.

The Company’s exposure to the mortgage industry is discussed in Note 6.

The unrealized loss of $(31.1) million for the Third Quarter in the Other asset type is mainly due to widening spreads for a pooled infrastructure transaction and a wrapped film securitization transaction. The unrealized loss of $(201.1) million for Nine Months ended September 30, 2008 is primarily attributable to a change in the call date assumption and widening of spreads for a pooled infrastructure transaction during the Second Quarter 2008, that resulted in a unrealized loss of $(100.4) million, and a ratings downgrade on a wrapped film securitization transaction, that resulted in an unrealized loss of $(48.2) million. Other also includes management’s estimate of credit related impairments for the Company’s credit derivative exposures of $10.1 million and $18.9 million for the Third Quarter and Nine Months ended September 30, 2008, respectively. With considerable volatility continuing in the market, the fair value adjustment amount may fluctuate significantly in future periods.

The following table presents additional details about the Company’s unrealized gain on pooled corporate obligation credit derivatives, which includes collateralized loan obligations, market value CDOs and trust preferred securities, by asset type as of September 30, 2008:

(1) Based on the Company’s internal rating, which is on a comparable scale to that of the nationally recognized rating agencies.

(2) Represents the sum of subordinate tranches and over-collateralization and does not include any benefit from excess interest collections that may be used to absorb losses.

The following table presents additional details about the Company’s unrealized gain on credit derivatives associated with commercial mortgage-backed securities by vintage as of September 30, 2008:

14

Table of Contents

The following tables present additional details about the Company’s unrealized gain on credit derivatives associated with residential mortgage-backed securities by vintage and asset type as of September 30, 2008:

In general, the Company structures credit derivative transactions such that the method for making loss payments is similar to that for financial guaranty policies and generally occurs as losses are realized on the underlying reference obligation. Nonetheless, credit derivative transactions are governed by ISDA documentation and operates differently from financial guaranty insurance policies. For example, the Company’s control rights with respect to a reference obligation under a credit derivative may be more limited than when the Company issues a financial guaranty insurance policy. In addition, while the Company’s exposure under credit derivatives, like the Company’s exposure under financial guaranty insurance policies, have been generally for as long as the reference obligation remains outstanding, unlike financial guaranty policies, a credit derivative may be terminated for a breach of the ISDA documentation or other specific events. In some older credit derivative transactions, one such specified event is the failure of AGC to maintain specified financial strength ratings ranging from AA- to BBB-. If a credit derivative is terminated the Company could be required to make a mark-to-market payment as determined under the ISDA documentation. For example, if AGC’s rating were downgraded to A+, under market conditions at September 30, 2008, if the counterparties exercised their right to terminate their credit derivatives, AGC would have been required make payments that, under the Company’s mark-to-market methodology, was estimated to be approximately $42 million. Further, if AGC’s rating was downgraded to levels between “BBB+” and “BB+” it would have been required to make additional payments that, under the Company’s mark-to-market methodology, was estimated to be approximately $207 million at September 30, 2008. As of September 30, 2008 the Company had pre-IPO transactions with approximately $1.3 billion of par subject to collateral posting due to changes in market value. In the event AGC were downgraded from AAA to Aa2, with respect to certain of its credit derivative contracts, the amount of par subject to collateral posting requirements would increase to $1.5 billion from $1.2 billion as a result of certain collateral posting thresholds being lowered. In the event AGC were downgraded below A-, the maximum amount of par subject to collateral posting requirements would be $2.4 billion. However, at current fair market value amounts, AGC would not have to pledge additional collateral for the benefit of its counterparties. In October and November 2008, the Company posted collateral totaling approximately $68.5 million based on the unrealized mark-to-market loss position for transactions with two of its counterparties. Under current market conditions we do not anticipate a material increase in the amount posted. Currently no additional collateral posting is required or anticipated for any other transactions.

As of September 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007, the Company considered the impact of its own credit risk, in combination with credit spreads on risk that it assumes through CDS contracts, in determining the fair value of its credit derivatives. The Company determines its own credit risk based on quoted CDS prices traded on the Company at each balance sheet date. The quoted price of CDS contracts traded on the Company at September 30, 2008 and

15

Table of Contents

December 31, 2007 was 1,255 basis points and 180 basis points, respectively. Historically, the price of CDS traded on the Company generally moves directionally the same as general market spreads. Generally, a widening of the CDS prices traded on the Company has an effect of offsetting unrealized losses that result from widening general market credit spreads, while a narrowing of the CDS prices traded on the Company has an effect of offsetting unrealized gains that result from narrowing general market credit spreads. An overall narrowing of spreads generally results in an unrealized gain on credit derivatives for the Company and an overall widening of spreads generally results in an unrealized loss for the Company.

The following table summarizes the estimated change in fair values on the net balance of the Company’s credit derivative positions assuming immediate parallel shifts in credit spreads at September 30, 2008:

(Dollars in millions)