Essent Group (EG0) Risk Analysis

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 ("TCJA") contains substantial law changes to the CFC rules, and such changes could impact our shareholders under certain circumstances summarized below. If you are a "10% U.S. Shareholder" (defined to be a "U.S. Person" (as defined below) who owns (directly, or indirectly through non-U.S. entities) or ("constructively," as defined below) at least 10% of the total combined value or voting power of all classes of stock) of a non-U.S. corporation that is a CFC at any time during a taxable year and you own shares in such non-U.S. corporation directly or indirectly through non-U.S. entities on the last day of the non-U.S. corporation's taxable year on which it is a CFC, you must include in your gross income for U.S. Federal income tax purposes your pro rata share of the CFC's "subpart F income," even if the subpart F income is not distributed. Also, due to attribution rule changes contained in TCJA, the Company believes that, based upon ownership of its U.S. subsidiaries, its foreign reinsurer (Essent Reinsurance Ltd.), and foreign intermediate holding company (Essent Irish Intermediate Holdings Ltd.) will both be deemed CFC's. Accordingly, any shareholder who becomes a "10% U.S. Shareholder" at any time during the calendar year, by either vote or value will be subject to a "Subpart F income" inclusion on a per share per day basis. Subpart F income of a non-U.S. insurance corporation typically includes "foreign personal holding company income" (such as interest, dividends and other types of passive income), as well as insurance and reinsurance income (including underwriting and investment income). For purposes of this discussion, the term "U.S. Person" means: (i) an individual citizen or resident of the United States, (ii) a partnership or corporation, created in or organized under the laws of the United States, or organized under the laws of any political subdivision thereof, (iii) an estate the income of which is subject to U.S. Federal income taxation regardless of its source, (iv) a trust if either (x) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of such trust and one or more U.S. Persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of such trust or (y) the trust has a valid election in effect to be treated as a U.S. Person for U.S. Federal income tax purposes; or (v) any other person or entity that is treated for U.S. Federal income tax purposes as if it were one of the foregoing.

If the RPII (determined on a gross basis) of Essent Reinsurance Ltd. were to equal or exceed 20% of Essent Reinsurance Ltd.'s gross insurance income in any taxable year and direct or indirect policyholders (and persons related to those policyholders) own directly or indirectly through entities 20% or more of the voting power or value of the Company, then a U.S. Person who owns any shares of Essent Reinsurance Ltd. (directly or indirectly through non-U.S. entities) on the last day of the taxable year on which it is an RPII CFC would be required to include in its income for U.S. Federal income tax purposes such person's pro rata share of Essent Reinsurance Ltd.'s RPII for the entire taxable year, determined as if such RPII were distributed proportionately only to U.S. Persons at that date regardless of whether such income is distributed, in which case your investment could be materially adversely affected. In addition, any RPII that is includible in the income of a U.S. tax-exempt organization may be treated as unrelated business taxable income. The amount of RPII earned by a non-U.S. insurance subsidiary (generally, premium and related investment income from the indirect or direct insurance or reinsurance of any direct or indirect U.S. holder of shares or any person related to such holder) will depend on a number of factors, including the identity of persons directly or indirectly insured or reinsured by the company. We do not expect gross RPII of Essent Reinsurance Ltd. to equal or exceed 20% of its gross insurance income in any taxable year for the foreseeable future, but we cannot be certain that this will be the case because some of the factors which determine the extent of RPII may be beyond our control.

Section 1248 of the Code in conjunction with the RPII rules provides that if a U.S. Person disposes of shares in a non-U.S. corporation that earns insurance income in which U.S. Persons own 25% or more of the shares (even if the amount of gross RPII is less than 20% of the corporation's gross insurance income or the ownership of its shares by direct or indirect policyholders and related persons is less than the 20% threshold), any gain from the disposition will generally be treated as a dividend to the extent of the holder's share of the corporation's undistributed earnings and profits that were accumulated during the period that the holder owned the shares (whether or not such earnings and profits are attributable to RPII). In addition, such a holder will be required to comply with certain reporting requirements, regardless of the amount of shares owned by the holder. These RPII rules should not apply to dispositions of our shares because the Company will not itself be directly engaged in the insurance business. The RPII provisions, however, have never been interpreted by the courts or the U.S. Treasury in final regulations, and regulations interpreting the RPII provisions of the Code exist only in proposed form. It is not certain whether these regulations will be adopted in their proposed form or what changes or clarifications might ultimately be made thereto or whether any such changes, as well as any interpretation or application of the RPII rules by the IRS, the courts, or otherwise, might have retroactive effect. The U.S. Treasury has authority to impose, among other things, additional reporting requirements with respect to RPII. Accordingly, the meaning of the RPII provisions and the application thereof to us is uncertain.

The TCJA contains substantial law changes to the PFIC rules, and such changes could impact our shareholders under certain circumstances summarized below. Due to changes to the PFIC rules contained in the TCJA, we believe that Essent Reinsurance Ltd. will be deemed a PFIC, and any U.S. Person owning shares in the company could be subject to adverse tax consequences, if recently proposed regulations discussed below are enacted as final even if Essent Group is not a PFIC. Based upon the current relative value of its U.S. subsidiaries vs. foreign subsidiaries, management believes that Essent Group Ltd. is not currently a PFIC. However, in the event that future business circumstances (i.e. relative value changes) and/or tax law changes occur, Essent Group Ltd. may be considered a PFIC. Management has operated, and intends to continue to operate, in a manner such as to avoid Essent Group Ltd. being deemed a PFIC based upon relative value of its subsidiaries; however, there can be no guaranty that management will be successful in the future. Also, if future tax law changes redefine whom may be considered a "U.S. Person" subject to PFIC income inclusion, then any U.S. Person who owns any of our shares could be subject to adverse tax consequences, including becoming subject to a greater tax liability than might otherwise apply and to tax on amounts in advance of when tax would otherwise be imposed, in which case your investment could be materially adversely affected. In addition, if Essent Group Ltd. were considered a PFIC, upon the death of any U.S. individual owning shares, such individual's heirs or estate would not be entitled to a "step-up" in the basis of the shares that might otherwise be available under U.S. Federal income tax laws. We believe that Essent Group Ltd. is not, has not been, and currently does not expect to become, a PFIC for U.S. Federal income tax purposes. However, recently proposed regulations also introduce attribution rules that, taken together with other provisions of the regulations, could result in a U.S. Person that directly owns any shares in a non- PFIC being treated as an indirect shareholder of a lower tier PFIC subject to the general PFIC rules described herein. In addition, the proposed regulations attempt to clarify the application of the PFIC provisions to an insurance company and provide guidance on a range of issues relating to PFICs including the application of the look-through rule, the treatment of income and assets of certain U.S. insurance subsidiaries for purposes of the look-through rule and the extension of the look-through rule to 25 percent or more owned partnerships. The proposed regulations also provide that a non-U.S. insurance company may only qualify for an exception to the PFIC rules if, among other things, the non-U.S. insurance company's officers and employees perform its substantial managerial and operational activities (taking into account activities of officers and employees of certain related entities in certain cases). The proposed regulations also provide that an active conduct percentage test must be satisfied for the insurance company exception to apply, which test compares the expenses for services of officers and employees of the non-U.S. insurer and certain related entities incurred for the production of premium and certain investment income to all such expenses regardless of the service provider. These proposed regulations will not be effective unless and until adopted in final form. We cannot predict the likelihood of finalization of the proposed regulations or the scope, nature, or impact of the proposed regulations on it or its shareholders that are U.S. Persons should they be formally adopted or enacted. There can be no assurance that such new regulations when adopted will not adversely impact Essent Group Ltd.'s PFIC status or U.S. Persons owning Essent Group Ltd. shares. If Essent Group Ltd. were considered a PFIC or if U.S. Persons owning Essent Group Ltd. shares were treated as indirect owners of Essent Reinsurance Ltd. under the PFIC attribution rules, it would have material adverse tax consequences for an investor that is subject to U.S. Federal income taxation.

A U.S. tax-exempt organization may recognize unrelated business taxable income if a portion of the insurance income of any of our non-U.S. insurance subsidiaries is allocated to the organization, which generally would be the case if the tax-exempt shareholder is a 10% U.S. Shareholder or if there is RPII, and certain exceptions do not apply, and the tax-exempt organization owns any of our shares. Although we do not believe that any U.S. Persons should be allocated such insurance income, we cannot be certain that this will be the case. U.S. tax-exempt investors are advised to consult their own tax advisors.

The market price of our common shares may fluctuate significantly in the future. Some of the factors that could negatively affect the market price of our common shares include: - actual or anticipated variations in our quarterly operating results;- changes in our earnings estimates or publication of research reports about us or the real estate industry;- changes in market valuations of similar companies;- any indebtedness we incur in the future;- changes in credit markets and interest rates;- changes in government policies, laws and regulations;- changes impacting Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae;- additions to or departures of our key management personnel;- actions by shareholders;- speculation in the press or investment community;- strategic actions by us or our competitors;- changes in our credit ratings;- the availability of third-party reinsurance for the insurance coverage that we write;- general market and economic conditions;- our failure to meet, or the lowering of, our earnings estimates or those of any securities analysts; and - price and volume fluctuations in the stock market generally. The stock markets have experienced extreme volatility in recent years that has been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price of our common shares. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in their stock price. This type of litigation, even if it does not result in liability for us, could result in substantial costs to us and divert management's attention and resources.

Sales of substantial amounts of our common shares in the public market, or the perception that these sales could occur, could cause the market price of our common shares to decline. As of February 10, 2020, we had 98,450,053 outstanding common shares. In the future, we may issue additional common shares or other equity or debt securities convertible into common shares in connection with a financing, acquisition, and litigation settlement or employee arrangement or otherwise. Any of these issuances could result in substantial dilution to our existing shareholders and could cause the trading price of our common shares to decline.

The trading market for our common shares depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of these analysts downgrades our shares or publishes misleading or unfavorable research about our business, our share price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of our Company or fails to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our shares could decrease, which could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.

We are a Bermuda exempted company. As a result, the rights of holders of our common shares are governed by Bermuda law and our memorandum of association and bye-laws. The rights of shareholders under Bermuda law may differ from the rights of shareholders of companies incorporated in other jurisdictions. Certain of our directors are not residents of the United States, and a substantial portion of our assets are owned by subsidiaries domiciled outside the United States. As a result, it may be difficult for investors to effect service of process on those persons in the United States or to enforce in the United States judgments obtained in U.S. courts against us or those persons based on the civil liability provisions of the U.S. securities laws. It is doubtful whether courts in Bermuda will enforce judgments obtained in other jurisdictions, including the United States, against us or our directors or officers under the securities laws of those jurisdictions or entertain actions in Bermuda against us or our directors or officers under the securities laws of other jurisdictions.

The Bermuda Companies Act 1981 (the "Companies Act"), which applies to us, differs in certain material respects from laws generally applicable to U.S. corporations and their shareholders. Set forth below is a summary of certain significant provisions of the Companies Act and our bye-laws which differ in certain respects from provisions of Delaware corporate law. Because the following statements are summaries, they do not discuss all aspects of Bermuda law that may be relevant to us and our shareholders. Interested Directors:    Bermuda law provides that if a director has an interest in a material contract or proposed material contract with us or any of our subsidiaries or has a material interest in any person that is a party to such a contract, the director must disclose the nature of that interest at the first opportunity either at a meeting of directors or in writing to the board. Under Delaware law such transaction would not be voidable if: - the material facts as to such interested director's relationship or interests were disclosed or were known to the board of directors and the board of directors had in good faith authorized the transaction by the affirmative vote of a majority of the disinterested directors;- such material facts were disclosed or were known to the shareholders entitled to vote on such transaction and the transaction were specifically approved in good faith by vote of the majority of shares entitled to vote thereon; or - the transaction was fair as to the corporation as of the time it was authorized, approved or ratified. Under Delaware law, the interested director could be held liable for a transaction in which the director derived an improper personal benefit. Business Combinations with Large Shareholders or Affiliates.    As a Bermuda company, we may enter into business combinations with our large shareholders or affiliates, including mergers, asset sales and other transactions in which a large shareholder or affiliate receives, or could receive, a financial benefit that is greater than that received, or to be received, by other shareholders, without obtaining prior approval from our board of directors or from our shareholders. If we were a Delaware company, we would need prior approval from our board of directors or a supermajority of our shareholders to enter into a business combination with an interested shareholder for a period of three years from the time the person became an interested shareholder, unless we opted out of the relevant Delaware statute. Our bye-laws also include a provision restricting business combinations with interested shareholders consistent with the corresponding Delaware statute. Shareholders' Suits.    The rights of shareholders under Bermuda law are not as extensive as the rights of shareholders in many U.S. jurisdictions. Class actions and derivative actions are generally not available to shareholders under the laws of Bermuda. However, the Bermuda courts ordinarily would be expected to follow English case law precedent, which would permit a shareholder to commence an action in the name of the company to remedy a wrong done to the company where an act is alleged to be beyond the corporate power of the company, is illegal or would result in the violation of our memorandum of association or bye-laws. Furthermore, a court would consider acts that are alleged to constitute a fraud against the minority shareholders or where an act requires the approval of a greater percentage of our shareholders than actually approved it. The prevailing party in such an action generally would be able to recover a portion of attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such action. Our bye-laws provide that shareholders waive all claims or rights of action that they might have, individually or in the right of the company, against any director or officer for any act or failure to act in the performance of such director's or officer's duties, except with respect to any fraud or dishonesty of such director or officer. Class actions and derivative actions generally are available to shareholders under Delaware law for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and actions not taken in accordance with applicable law. In such actions, the court has discretion to permit the winning party to recover attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such action. Indemnification of Directors.    We may indemnify our directors or officers or any person appointed to any committee by the board of directors acting in their capacity as such in relation to any of our affairs for any loss arising or liability attaching to them by virtue of any rule of law in respect of any negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust of which such person may be guilty in relation to the company other than in respect of his own fraud or dishonesty. Under Delaware law, a corporation may indemnify a director or officer of the corporation against expenses (including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred in defense of an action, suit or proceeding by reason of such position if such director or officer acted in good faith and in a manner he or she reasonably believed to be in or not be opposed to the best interests of the corporation and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, such director or officer had no reasonable cause to believe his or her conduct was unlawful.

Under our bye-laws and subject to Bermuda law, we have the option, but not the obligation, to require a shareholder to sell to us at fair market value the minimum number of common shares which is necessary to avoid or cure any adverse tax consequences or materially adverse legal or regulatory treatment to us, our subsidiaries or our shareholders if our board of directors reasonably determines, in good faith, that failure to exercise our option would result in such adverse consequences or treatment.

In general, and except as provided under our bye-laws and as provided below, our shareholders have one vote for each common share held by them and are entitled to vote, on a non-cumulative basis, at all meetings of shareholders. However, if, and so long as, the shares of a shareholder are treated as "controlled shares" (as determined pursuant to sections 957 and 958 of the Code) of any U.S. Person that owns shares directly or indirectly through non-U.S. entities) and such controlled shares constitute 9.5% or more of the votes conferred by our issued shares, the voting rights with respect to the controlled shares owned by such U.S. Person will be limited, in the aggregate, to a voting power of less than 9.5%, under a formula specified in our bye-laws. The formula is applied repeatedly until the voting power of all 9.5% U.S. Shareholders has been reduced to less than 9.5%. In addition, our board of directors may limit a shareholder's voting rights when it deems it appropriate to do so to (i) avoid the existence of any 9.5% U.S. Shareholder; and (ii) avoid certain material adverse legal or regulatory consequences to us, any of our subsidiaries or any direct or indirect shareholder or its affiliates. The amount of any reduction of votes that occurs by operation of the above limitations will generally be reallocated proportionately among our other shareholders whose shares were not "controlled shares" of the 9.5% U.S. Shareholder so long as such reallocation does not cause any person to become a 9.5% U.S. Shareholder. Under these provisions, certain shareholders may have their voting rights limited, while other shareholders may have voting rights in excess of one vote per share. Moreover, these provisions could have the effect of reducing the votes of certain shareholders who would not otherwise be subject to the 9.5% limitation by virtue of their direct share ownership. We are authorized under our bye-laws to request information from any shareholder for the purpose of determining whether a shareholder's voting rights are to be reallocated under the bye-laws. If any holder fails to respond to this request or submits incomplete or inaccurate information, we may, in our sole discretion, eliminate the shareholder's voting rights.