United States

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006

or

For the transition period from                to

Commission File Number 1-9583

MBIA INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (914) 273-4545

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes x    No ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨    No x

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 ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (Section 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10 -K. x

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer x    Accelerated filer ¨    Non-accelerated filer ¨

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

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant as of June 30, 2006 was $7,889,553,950.

As of February 15, 2007, 134,740,104 shares of Common Stock, par value $1 per share, were outstanding.

Documents incorporated by reference. Portions of the Definitive Proxy Statement of the Registrant, which will be filed on or before March 31, 2007, are incorporated by reference into Parts I and III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item 1. Business

MBIA Inc. (“MBIA” or the “Company”) was incorporated as a business corporation under the laws of the state of Connecticut in 1986. The Company provides financial guarantee insurance and other forms of credit protection as well as investment management services to public finance and structured finance issuers and investors and capital market participants on a global basis. The Company’s financial guarantee insurance provides an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee of the payment of the principal of, and interest or other amounts owing on, insured obligations when due or, in the event that the Company has the right, at its discretion, to accelerate insured obligations upon default or otherwise, upon such acceleration by the Company. The Company conducts its financial guarantee business through its wholly owned subsidiary MBIA Insurance Corporation (“MBIA Corp.”) and provides investment management products and financial services through its wholly owned subsidiary MBIA Asset Management, LLC (“MBIA Asset Management”).

MBIA Corp. is the successor to the business of the Municipal Bond Insurance Association (the “Association”), which began writing financial guarantees for municipal bonds in 1974. MBIA Corp. is the parent of MBIA Insurance Corp. of Illinois (“MBIA Illinois”) and Capital Markets Assurance Corporation (“CapMAC”), both financial guarantee companies that were acquired by MBIA Corp. At present, no new financial guarantee insurance is being offered by MBIA Illinois or CapMAC, but it is possible that either of those entities may insure transactions in the future. MBIA Corp. also owns MBIA Assurance S.A. (“MBIA Assurance”), a French insurance company, and MBIA UK Insurance Limited (“MBIA UK”), a financial guarantee insurance company licensed in the United Kingdom. MBIA UK and MBIA Assurance write financial guarantee insurance in the member countries of the European Union and other regions outside the United States. Generally, throughout the text, references to MBIA Corp. include the activities of its subsidiaries, MBIA UK, MBIA Assurance, MBIA Illinois and CapMAC. In February 2007, MBIA Corp. incorporated a new subsidiary, MBIA México, S.A. de C.V. (“MBIA Mexico”), through which it intends to write financial guarantee insurance in Mexico beginning in 2007. To date, MBIA Mexico has had no operating activity.

MBIA Corp. primarily insures financial obligations which are sold in the new issue and secondary markets. It also provides financial guarantees for debt service reserve funds. As a result of the triple-A ratings assigned to insured obligations, the principal economic value of financial guarantee insurance is the lower interest cost of an insured obligation relative to the same obligation on an uninsured basis. In addition, for complex financings and for obligations of issuers that are not well-known by investors, insured obligations receive greater market acceptance than uninsured obligations.

MBIA Corp. guarantees:

MBIA Corp. has triple-A financial strength ratings from Standard and Poor’s Corporation (“S&P”), which the Association received in 1974; from Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”), which the Association received in 1984; from Fitch, Inc. (“Fitch”), which MBIA Corp. received in 1995; and from Rating and Investment Information, Inc. (“RII”), which MBIA Corp. received in 1998. Both MBIA Assurance and MBIA UK have triple-A financial strength ratings from S&P, Moody’s and Fitch. MBIA Mexico is expected to achieve the same financial strength ratings. Obligations which are guaranteed by MBIA Corp., MBIA Assurance and MBIA UK are rated triple-A primarily based on these financial strength ratings. Both S&P and Moody’s have also continued the triple-A rating on MBIA Illinois and CapMAC guaranteed bond issues and we expect that issues guaranteed by MBIA Mexico will achieve the same ratings. The triple-A ratings are important to the operation of the Company’s business and any reduction in these ratings could have a material adverse effect on MBIA Corp.’s ability to compete and could also have a material adverse effect on the business, operations and financial results of the Company.

1

MBIA Asset Management provides an array of products and services to the public, not-for-profit and corporate sectors. These products and services are provided primarily through wholly owned subsidiaries of MBIA Asset Management and include cash management, discretionary asset management and fund administration services and investment agreement, medium-term note and commercial paper programs related to funding assets for third-party clients and for investment purposes. The investment management services operations are comprised of three operating segments:

The asset/liability products segment raises funds for investment management through the issuance of investment agreements, which are issued by the Company and guaranteed by MBIA Corp., to public entities and as part of asset-backed or structured finance transactions for the investment of bond proceeds and other funds. This segment also raises funds through the issuance of medium-term notes (“MTNs”) which are issued by its affiliate MBIA Global Funding, LLC (“GFL”) and guaranteed by MBIA Corp. MBIA Asset Management invests the proceeds of the investment agreements and MTNs in high quality eligible investments both in the United States and abroad. MBIA Asset Management offers these products through MBIA Investment Management Corp. (“IMC”), GFL and Euro Asset Acquisition Limited (“EAAL”).

The advisory services segment of MBIA Asset Management offers cash management, customized asset management and investment consulting services to local governments, school districts and other institutional clients. It offers fixed-income asset management services for the investment portfolios of the Company, MBIA Corp. and other affiliates and also for third-party clients and investment structures. MBIA Asset Management offers these services through MBIA Municipal Investors Service Corporation (“MBIA-MISC”), MBIA Capital Management Corp. (“CMC”) and MBIA Asset Management UK Limited (“AM-UK”).

MBIA Asset Management also administers three multi-seller conduit financing vehicles, Triple-A One Funding Corp., Meridian Funding Company, LLC and Polaris Funding Company, LLC (together, the “Conduits”). The Conduits provide funding for multiple customers through special purpose vehicles that issue primarily commercial paper and MTNs.

The Company discontinued its municipal services operations in 2006. These operations included MBIA MuniServices Company (“MuniServices”), which provided revenue enhancement services and products, such as discovery, audit, collections/recovery and information/data services, to state and local governments. In addition, through MuniServices, the Company owned Capital Asset Holdings GP, Inc. and certain affiliated entities (collectively, “Capital Asset”). Capital Asset was in the business of acquiring and servicing tax liens. On December 5, 2006, the Company completed the sale of MBIA MuniServices Company to an investor group led by the management of MBIA MuniServices Company. The business was treated as a discontinued operation in the third quarter of 2006. Effective December 31, 2006, MBIA sold all of the Capital Asset operating entities, including any remaining non-Pittsburgh liens and nationwide real estate owned by such entities, to a third party company that is engaged in tax lien servicing and collection and that had been overseeing the servicing operations of Capital Asset since July of 2006. In addition, in the fourth quarter the Company entered into an agreement to sell its Pittsburgh tax liens back to the city of Pittsburgh for $6.5 million. The Company no longer has any guaranteed tax lien securitizations outstanding and no longer owns or services tax liens originated by Capital Asset. Results for the Company’s Capital Asset operations, included in the corporate segment in the third quarter of 2006, are now included in discontinued operations.

Statements included in this Form 10-K which are not historical or current facts are “forward-looking statements” made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The words “believe,” “anticipate,” “project,” “plan,” “expect,” “intend,” “will likely result,” or “will continue,” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from historical earnings and those presently anticipated or projected. We wish to caution readers not to place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements, which speak only as of their respective dates. The following are some of the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from estimates contained in or underlying the Company’s forward-looking statements: (1) fluctuations in the economic, credit, interest rate or foreign currency environment in the United States or abroad; (2) level of activity within the national and international credit markets; (3) competitive conditions and pricing levels; (4) legislative or regulatory developments; (5) technological developments; (6) changes in tax laws; (7) changes in the Company’s credit ratings; (8) the effects of mergers, acquisitions and divestitures; and (9) uncertainties that have not been identified at this time. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly correct or update any forward-looking statement if it later becomes aware that such result is not likely to be achieved.

2

INSURANCE OPERATIONS

MBIA Corp. offers financial guarantee insurance and other forms of credit protection in the United States, Europe, Asia, Latin America and other regions outside the United States.

Municipal Obligations

The municipal obligations that MBIA Corp. insures include tax-exempt and taxable indebtedness of Unites States political subdivisions, as well as utility districts, airports, health care institutions, higher educational facilities, housing authorities and other similar agencies and obligations issued by private entities that finance projects that serve a substantial public purpose. Municipal bonds and privately issued bonds used for the financing of public purpose projects are generally supported by taxes, assessments, fees or tariffs related to use of projects, lease payments or other similar types of revenue streams. The financing of public purpose projects through privately issued bonds primarily occurs overseas, and these projects include toll roads, bridges, airports, public transportation facilities and other types of infrastructure projects that serve a substantial public purpose. While in the United States projects of this nature are financed through the issuance of tax-exempt bonds by special purpose, government sponsored tax-exempt entities, the general absence of tax-advantaged financing overseas, among other reasons, has led to the operation of many such public purpose projects being transferred to the private sector. Generally, the private entities operate under a concession agreement with the sponsoring government agency, which maintains a level of regulatory oversight and control over the project.

Structured Finance and Asset-Backed Obligations

The asset-backed and structured finance obligations insured by MBIA Corp. typically consist of securities that are payable from or which are tied to the performance of a specified pool of assets that have an expected cash flow, such as residential and commercial mortgages, proceeds of insurance policies, a variety of consumer loans, corporate loans and bonds, trade and export receivables, equipment, aircraft and real property leases, and infrastructure projects. Structured finance obligations are either undivided interests in the related assets, or debt obligations collateralized by the related assets. In addition, the Company insures payments due under credit and other derivatives, including termination payments that may become due upon the occurrence of certain events.

Structured finance transactions are often structured such that the insured obligations benefit from some form of credit enhancement to cover credit risks such as over-collateralization, subordination, excess cash flow or first loss protection. Structured finance obligations contain certain risks including asset risk, which relates to the amount and quality of asset coverage, structural risk, which relates to the extent to which the transaction structure protects the interests of the investors from the bankruptcy of the originator of the underlying assets or the issuer of the securities, and servicer risk, which relates to problems with the transaction servicer (the entity which is responsible for collecting the cash flow from the asset pool) that could affect the servicing of the underlying assets.

In general, the asset risk is addressed by sizing the asset pool and its associated protection level based on the historical and expected future performance of the assets. Structural risks primarily involve bankruptcy risks, such as whether the sale of the assets by the originator to the issuer would be upheld in the event of the bankruptcy or insolvency of the originator and whether the servicer of the assets may be required to delay the remittance of any cash collections held by it or received by it after the time it becomes subject to bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings. Structured finance transactions are usually structured to reduce the risk to the investors from the bankruptcy or insolvency of the entity that originated the underlying assets, as well as from the bankruptcy or insolvency of the servicer, and to minimize the likelihood of the bankruptcy or insolvency of the issuer of the obligation. The ability of the servicer to properly service and collect on the underlying assets is also a factor in determining future asset performance. MBIA Corp. addresses these issues through its servicer due diligence and underwriting guidelines, its formal credit review and approval process and its post-closing servicing review and monitoring.

International Obligations

Outside of the United States, sovereign and sub-sovereign issuers, structured finance issuers, utilities and other issuers, including private issuers who are financing projects with a substantial public purpose, also use financial guarantee insurance to guarantee their public finance and structured finance obligations. Ongoing privatization efforts have shifted the burden of financing new projects from the government to the capital markets, where investors can benefit from the security of financial guarantee insurance. There is also growing interest in asset-backed securitization. While the principles of securitization have been increasingly applied in overseas markets, the rate of development in particular countries has varied due to the sophistication of the local capital markets and the impact of financial regulatory requirements, accounting standards and legal systems. It is expected that securitization will continue to expand internationally, at varying rates in each country. MBIA Corp. insures both structured finance and public finance obligations in selected international markets. MBIA Corp. believes that the risk profile of the international business it insures is generally the same as in the United States, but recognizes that there are particular risks related to each country and region. These risks include the legal, economic and political situation, the varying levels of sophistication of the local capital markets and currency exchange risks. MBIA Corp. evaluates and monitors these risks carefully.

3

Primary and Secondary Markets

MBIA Corp. offers financial guarantee insurance in both the new issue and secondary markets on a global basis. Transactions in the new issue market are sold either through negotiated offerings or competitive bidding. In negotiated transactions, either the issuer or the underwriter purchases the insurance policy directly from MBIA Corp. For municipal bond issues involving competitive bidding, the insurance is offered as an option to the underwriters bidding on the transaction. The successful bidder would then have the option to purchase the insurance, or at times the issuer can purchase the insurance.

In the secondary market, MBIA provides credit enhancement for both municipal and structured products. MBIA guarantees the payment of principal and interest on municipal obligations which trade in the secondary market upon the request of an existing holder of uninsured bonds. The premium is generally paid by the owner of the obligation. The “RAPSS” program (“Rapid Asset Protection for Secondary Securities”) guarantees the payment of principal and interest on an individual structured finance security or class of such securities traded in the secondary market in response to requests from bond traders and investors. Securities insured in the RAPSS program have the benefit of MBIA Corp.’s guarantee until maturity. The “Portfolio Insurance” program enables an investor to insure a specific portfolio of structured finance bonds and is offered as an ongoing program with investment banks, financial service companies and conduit sponsors. For each insured portfolio, MBIA Corp. establishes specific underwriting criteria for the inclusion of new assets in the program portfolio. The Portfolio Insurance program is a “while-in-trust” program which provides the benefits of an MBIA Corp. guarantee to securities only during the time they are held in a particular insured portfolio, although in some cases, MBIA Corp. may offer insurance to maturity for an additional premium.

MBIA Corp. Insured Portfolio

MBIA Corp. seeks to maintain a diversified insured portfolio and has designed the insured portfolio to manage and diversify risk based on a variety of criteria including revenue source, issue size, type of asset, industry concentrations, type of bond and geographic area. As of December 31, 2006, MBIA Corp. had 27,468 policies outstanding. In addition, MBIA Corp. has issued 1,029 policies relating to MBIA Asset Management transactions. These policies are diversified among 10,969 “credits,” which MBIA Corp. defines as any group of issues supported by the same revenue source.

Virtually all of the insurance policies issued by MBIA Corp. provide an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee of the payment to a designated paying agent for the holders of the insured obligations of an amount equal to the payment of the principal of, and interest or other amounts owing on, insured obligations when due or, in the event that the Company has the right, at its discretion, to accelerate insured obligations upon default or otherwise, upon such acceleration by the Company. In addition, certain of MBIA Corp.’s insurance policies guarantee payments due under credit or other derivatives, including termination payments that may become due upon the occurrence of certain events. In the event of a default in payment of principal, interest or other insured amounts by an issuer, MBIA Corp. promises to make funds available in the insured amount generally on the next business day following notification. MBIA Corp. has a Fiscal Agency Agreement with a bank which provides for this payment upon receipt of proof of ownership of the obligations due, as well as upon receipt of instruments appointing the insurer as agent for the holders and evidencing the assignment of the rights of the holders with respect to the payments made by the insurer.

Because MBIA Corp. generally guarantees to the holder of the underlying obligation the timely payment of amounts due on such obligation in accordance with its original payment schedule, in the case of a default on an insured obligation, payments under the insurance policy cannot be accelerated against MBIA Corp., except in certain limited circumstances, unless MBIA Corp. consents to the acceleration. In the event of a default, however, MBIA Corp. may have the right, in its sole discretion, to accelerate the bonds and pay them in full. Otherwise, MBIA Corp. is required to pay principal, interest or other amounts only as originally scheduled payments come due. Even if the holders are permitted by the terms of the insured obligations to have the full amount of principal, accrued interest or other amounts due, declared due and payable immediately in the event of a default, MBIA Corp. is required to pay only the amounts scheduled to be paid, but not in fact paid, on each originally scheduled payment date. However, MBIA Corp. may from time to time insure obligations that are backed by credit default swaps which by their terms require that termination payments be paid at the time of the default of the underlying reference obligation(s). Termination payments are generally calculated by deducting the market value of the reference obligation on the termination date from the specified amount of the reference obligation.

At December 31, 2006, the net par amount outstanding on MBIA Corp.’s insured obligations (including insured obligations of MBIA Illinois, MBIA Assurance, MBIA UK and CapMAC, but excluding $20.8 billion of MBIA insured investment agreements and MTNs for MBIA Asset Management) was $618 billion. Net insurance in force, which includes all insured debt service, at December 31, 2006 was $940 billion. Net insurance in force, which is net of cessions to reinsurers, is also net of other reimbursement agreements that relate to certain contracts under which MBIA Corp. is entitled to reimbursement of losses on its insured portfolio but which do not qualify as reinsurance under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”).

4

The table below sets forth information with respect to the original par amount insured per issue in MBIA Corp.’s portfolio as of December 31, 2006:

MBIA Corp. Original Par Amount Per Issue as of December 31, 2006 ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾

MBIA Corp. underwrites its policies on the assumption that the insurance will remain in force until maturity of the insured obligations. MBIA Corp. estimates that the average life (as opposed to the stated maturity) of its insurance policies in force at December 31, 2006 was 10.3 years. The average life was determined by applying a weighted-average calculation, using the remaining years to stated maturity of each insured obligation and weighting them on the basis of the remaining debt service insured. No assumptions were made for any future refundings of insured issues. Average annual insured debt service on the portfolio at December 31, 2006 was $73.1 billion.

The table below shows the diversification by type of insurance written by MBIA Corp. in each of the last five years:

MBIA Corp. Net Par Amount Written by Bond Type ⁽¹⁾

5

MBIA Corp. underwriting guidelines limit the net insurance in force for any one insured credit. In addition, MBIA Corp. is subject to both rating agency and regulatory single-risk limits with respect to any insured bond issue. As of December 31, 2006, MBIA Corp.’s net par amount outstanding for its ten largest insured public finance credits totaled $23.7 billion, representing 3.8% of MBIA Corp.’s total net par amount outstanding, and the net par outstanding for its ten largest structured finance credits (without aggregating common issuers), was $22.7 billion, representing 3.7% of the total.

Risk Management

Risk Management is an enterprise-wide function responsible for the identification, assessment, measurement and management of credit, market and operational risks across the Company. MBIA also tracks and manages legal, financial and business risks through consultation and oversight mechanisms at various different levels across the Company. MBIA’s risk tolerance is established and reviewed annually by the Company’s Board of Directors. The Credit, Finance and Audit Committees of the Company’s Board of Directors also review, on an ongoing basis, the risk management framework for credit, market, compliance and operational risks, respectively. MBIA Corp has four senior executive risk committees that review and approve specific policies, criteria and procedures: the Risk Oversight Committee, the Executive Credit Committee, the Executive Market/Investment Committee and the Loss Reserve Committee. For more information on loss reserving policy and procedures, see Part I, Item 1 Business—Losses and Reserves—Remediation.

The Risk Oversight Committee is responsible for overall risk policies and the risk management framework and provides a consultation role on a broad variety of risk issues across all MBIA businesses, including remediations, capital models and transaction capital usage and inter-company relationships. Its members include the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Risk Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and the head of Insured Portfolio Management. The Executive Credit Committee considers global credit risk throughout all of the Company’s businesses, including credit risks from country exposures, risk types, assets, structures or market or credit instruments, and aggregate portfolio risk across risk types and businesses. The Executive Credit Committee consists of the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Risk Officer, heads of the Global Structured Finance, Global Public Finance and International Divisions, the head of the Insured Portfolio Management Division and the head Credit and Market Risk Officers. The Executive Market/Investment Committee oversees financial market risk across all businesses and investment activities of the Company and its subsidiaries. Its members include the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Risk Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer, Treasurer, General Counsel and the head of Market Risk.

The Chief Risk Officer chairs the Risk Oversight, Executive Credit and Executive Market/Investment Committees and runs the Risk Management Division with responsibility for Credit Risk, Market Risk, Operational Risk, Credit Analytics and Portfolio Management. The largest unit in the division is Credit Risk, led by the Head Credit Officer. This area is responsible for underwriting criteria, policies and procedures, as well as managing the risk assessment and approval process for insured transactions.

6

MBIA Corp. establishes underwriting criteria based on those aspects of credit quality important for each category of obligations considered for insurance. For public finance transactions, these aspects may include economic and social trends, debt management, financial management, adequacy of anticipated cash flows, satisfactory legal structure and other security provisions, viable tax and economic bases, adequacy of loss coverage and project feasibility, including a satisfactory consulting engineer’s report, if applicable. For structured finance transactions, MBIA Corp.’s underwriting criteria, analysis and due diligence focus on counterparty credit and operational quality, the historical and projected performance of the collateral, and the strength of the structure, including legal segregation of the assets, cash flow analyses, the size and source of first loss protection, asset performance triggers and financial covenants. All transactions involving non-U.S. issuers, non-U.S. assets, non-U.S. sources of cash flows or which are not denominated in U.S. dollars also include an assessment of country risk. Many transactions also undergo an extensive cash flow analysis and sensitivity testing using a scenario-based analysis, “Monte Carlo” probability analysis or both to examine the impact of remote events on credit performance. The Credit Risk unit also reviews credit risk guidelines for investment portfolios within MBIA Asset Management, based on minimum credit ratings and counterparty concentration guidelines. The aggregate credit profile of both insurance and asset management businesses are regularly reported to the Finance Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors and the Risk Oversight Committee in an enterprise-wide Credit Risk Report. Over the life of a transaction, risk surveillance of these factors is then continued by the Insured Portfolio Management Division.

The Risk Division’s Credit Analytics unit analyzes and monitors MBIA Corp.’s embedded exposure to financial institutions and corporate entities in the form of counterparty and asset manager exposure or as obligors or counterparties on investment contracts, letters of credit, derivatives, liquidity and other facilities supporting MBIA Corp. insured issues. This unit recommends terms and conditions, as well as capacity guidelines for all such exposures.

The Market Risk unit measures and assesses market risk factors across the Company, which occurs primarily in the Asset Management business. Key market risks are changes in interest rates and credit spreads, with lesser risks of liquidity, derivatives, counterparty quality and foreign exchange. The Market Risk unit measures and monitors such risks using various models and methodologies to test economic exposures under market stress, including parallel and non-parallel shifts in the yield curve, changes in credit spreads, stressed liquidity scenarios and stressed counterparty exposures. Such analysis and stress testing is reported in an enterprise-wide Market Risk Report to the Executive Market/Investment Committee and the Finance Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.

The Operational Risk unit is responsible for the identification and assessment of potential loss caused by execution factors in processes, systems, or staff responsibilities, as well as identifying vulnerabilities to operational disruptions caused by external events. The unit uses a self-assessment process across all divisions to monitor and track the execution of key processes. The Operational Risk unit reports periodically to the Risk Oversight Committee and the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.

The Portfolio Management unit analyzes MBIA’s insured portfolio using various quantitative tools to test for diversity, credit quality, liquidity and other portfolio characteristics and recommends limits for risk concentrations and for internal capital usage. Portfolio tools include an internal economic capital model that measures risk-adjusted capital by transaction, by sector and for the aggregate portfolio as well as concentrations by obligor, country and counterparty and compliance with the applicable regulatory and internal guidelines. The Portfolio Management unit is also responsible for monitoring model risk throughout the Company, which includes the testing and validation of key models in the transaction process.

New Business Origination

The world-wide insurance operations of MBIA Corp. are conducted through the Global Public Finance Division, the Global Structured Finance Division, the Risk Management Division and the Insured Portfolio Management Division. Public finance and structured finance operations outside of the United States are conducted in coordination with the International Division.

In the three business divisions—the Public Finance, Structured Finance and International Divisions—all insurance products follow a screening and analysis process followed by a formal underwriting committee decision that draws on expertise from the business, risk and insured portfolio management staff. All such decentralized underwriting committees have eligible underwriting voters that are reviewed and appointed annually. Larger, complex, or unique transactions and most international transactions are also reviewed for approval by the Executive Credit Committee.

Global Public Finance underwriting is decentralized for many categories of business up to specified amounts based on a risk—ranking system. This decentralized process is overseen by Risk Management, which participates in the majority of underwriting committees based on the risk ranking system.

7

For almost all transactions underwritten by the Global Structured Finance Division, MBIA Corp.’s decentralized underwriting approval is performed by a risk committee consisting of the head of the applicable business unit, one officer from Risk Management and an officer from either the Risk Management Division or the Insured Portfolio Management Division. International transactions follow a similar process to the Global Structured Finance Division, with a preliminary screening by business and risk staff followed by an underwriting committee consisting of international and domestic officers from Risk Management, Insured Portfolio Management and the applicable business managers.

Premium rates for the Global Public Finance, Global Structured Finance and International Divisions are established by a Pricing Committee with representation from the relevant business unit and from the Pricing Group, which provides pricing and other market analysis.

Insured Portfolio Management

The Insured Portfolio Management Division (“IPM” or the “IPM Division”) is responsible for monitoring MBIA Corp.’s outstanding insured obligations. This group’s first function is to detect any deterioration in credit quality or changes in the economic, regulatory or political environment which could adversely affect an MBIA Corp. insured obligation, including interrupting the timely payment of debt service. If a problem is detected, the group works with the issuer, trustee, bond counsel, servicer, underwriter and other interested parties in an attempt to alleviate or remedy the problem in order to minimize potential defaults. The IPM Division works closely with Risk Management and the applicable business unit to analyze insured obligation performance and credit risk parameters, both before and after an obligation is insured.

Once an obligation is insured, MBIA Corp. typically requires the issuer, servicer (if applicable) and the trustee to furnish periodic financial and asset related information, including audited financial statements, to the IPM Division for review. Potential problems uncovered through this review, such as poor financial results, low fund balances, covenant or trigger violations, trustee or servicer problems, or excessive litigation, could result in an immediate surveillance review and an evaluation of possible remedial actions. The IPM Division also monitors general economic and regulatory conditions, state and municipal finances and budget developments and evaluates their impact on issuers.

During the underwriting process, each insured transaction is assigned an internal credit rating. Credits are monitored according to a frequency of review schedule that is based on risk type, internal rating, performance and credit quality. Issues that experience financial difficulties, deteriorating economic conditions, excessive litigation or covenant or trigger violations are placed on the appropriate review list and are subject to surveillance reviews at intervals commensurate to the problem which has been detected. If IPM identifies concerns with respect to the performance of an insured issue it may designate such insured issue as “Caution List-Low,” “Caution List-Medium” or “Caution List-High” based on the nature and extent of these concerns. It may also require increased monitoring and, if needed, a remediation plan be implemented for the related insured issue. The Company does not establish any case basis reserves for credits that are listed as “Caution List-Low,” “Caution List-Medium” or “Caution List-High.” In the event MBIA Corp. determines that it must pay a claim or that a claim is probable and estimable with respect to an insured issue, it places the issue on its “Classified List” and establishes a case basis reserve for that insured issue. See “Losses and Reserves; Remediation” below.

There are three areas in the IPM Division. The IPM group that supports the Global Public Finance Division handles all types of domestic and international municipal issues such as general obligation, tax-backed, utility, health care, transportation and special revenue bonds, as well as investor-owned utility and project finance transactions. The IPM group that supports the Global Structured Finance Division is responsible for domestic and international structured finance transactions, including future flow transactions and collateralized debt obligations. Each group is responsible for processing waiver and consent requests and other deal modifications within their areas of responsibility. The third area, the Special Situations Group, is described below.

IPM personnel supporting the Global Public Finance Division review and report on the major credit quality factors, evaluate the impact of new developments on weaker insured credits and carry out remedial activity. In addition, this group performs analysis of financial statements and key operating data on a large-scale basis and maintains various databases for research purposes. This group is also responsible for preparing special reports which include analyses of regional economic trends, proposed tax limitations, the impact of employment trends on local economies, legal developments affecting bond security and the potential impact of events, such as natural disasters or headline events, on the insured portfolio. This unit is also responsible for all health care transactions.

The IPM unit supporting the Global Structured Finance Division monitors insured structured finance issues, focusing on asset and servicer performance and transaction cash flows. Monitoring of insured issues typically involves review of monthly trustee, servicer and portfolio manager statements, compliance reviews with transaction documents and analysis of cash flow adequacy. Review of

8

issuer and/or servicer performance can include site visits, forensic audits, management meetings and financial statement reviews. For problem credits, the team performs additional specialized cash flow analyses, conducts best practice reviews with servicers and facilitates loss mitigation strategies.

The Special Situations Group assists in addressing insured exposures experiencing significant stress. The Special Situations Group is staffed with personnel with expertise in impaired credit situations. For issues that experience financial difficulties, deteriorating economic conditions, excessive litigation or covenant or trigger violations, the Special Situations Group works in conjunction with the related IPM personnel to assess and monitor the situation and determine the appropriate course of action, including, if necessary, developing and implementing a remediation strategy.

Losses and Reserves; Remediation

MBIA Corp. establishes both loss and loss adjustment expense reserves to cover non-specific unallocated losses on its entire non-derivative insured portfolio and specific case basis reserves with respect to actual and potential losses under specific insurance policies. The unallocated loss and loss adjustment expense reserve and specific case basis reserves are established by MBIA Corp.’s Loss Reserve Committee, which includes the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Risk Officer, Head of IPM and other members of senior management.

The unallocated loss reserve is established on an undiscounted basis with respect to MBIA Corp.’s entire insured portfolio. MBIA Corp.’s unallocated loss reserve represents its estimate of losses that have occurred or are probable to occur as a result of credit deterioration in MBIA Corp.’s insured portfolio but which have not yet been specifically identified and applied to specific insured obligations. The unallocated loss reserve is increased on a quarterly basis using a formula that applies a “loss factor” to MBIA Corp.’s scheduled net earned premium for the respective quarter. Each quarter MBIA Corp. calculates its provision for the unallocated loss reserve as a fixed percent of scheduled net earned premium. Annually, the Loss Reserve Committee evaluates the appropriateness of the loss factor. In performing this evaluation, the Loss Reserve Committee considers the composition of MBIA Corp.’s insured portfolio by municipal sector, structured asset class, remaining maturity and credit quality, along with the latest industry data, including historical default and recovery experience for the relevant sectors of the fixed-income market, in order to determine if a trend is developing that indicates the loss factor should be increased or decreased. In addition, the Company considers its own historical loss activity and how those losses develop over time. The Loss Reserve Committee reviews the results of its annual evaluation over a period of several years to determine whether any long-term trends are developing. Therefore, case basis reserves established in any year may be above or below the loss factor without requiring an increase or decrease to the loss factor. Since 2002, the Company calculated its provision for unallocated loss reserve as 12% of scheduled net earned premium. The Company’s additions to specific case basis reserves in the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004 exceeded the 12% loss factor currently used by the Company. However, additions to specific case basis reserves in the year ended December 31, 2006 were less than the 12% loss factor. The Loss Reserve Committee is continuing to monitor any trends and evaluate whether an adjustment to the Company’s current loss factor is appropriate. However, if a catastrophic or very unusual loss occurred, the Loss Reserve Committee would consider taking an immediate charge through “Losses and loss adjustment expenses” and possibly also increasing the loss factor in order to maintain an adequate level of loss reserves. For a further discussion of loss reserving and the assumptions used in the assessment of the adequacy of the loss factor, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Critical Accounting Estimates—Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses,” each in Part II, Item 7.

When a case basis reserve is established, MBIA Corp. reclassifies the estimated amount from its unallocated loss reserve in an amount equal to the specific case basis loss reserve. Therefore, the amount of available unallocated loss reserve at the end of each period is reduced by the actual case basis reserves established in the same period. In the event that case basis reserves develop at a significantly faster or slower rate than anticipated by applying the loss factor to net scheduled earned premium, MBIA Corp. will perform a qualitative evaluation with respect to the adequacy of the remaining unallocated loss reserve. In performing this evaluation, MBIA Corp. considers the anticipated amounts of future transfers to existing case basis reserves, as well as the likelihood those policies for which case basis reserves have not been established will require case basis reserves at a faster or slower rate than initially expected.

MBIA Corp. establishes new case basis reserves with respect to a specific insurance policy when the Loss Reserve Committee determines that (i) a claim has been made or is probable in the future with respect to such policy based on specific credit events that have occurred and (ii) the amount of the ultimate loss that MBIA will incur under such policy can be reasonably estimated. The amount of the case basis reserve with respect to any policy is based on the net present value of the expected ultimate losses and loss adjustment expense payments that MBIA Corp. expects to pay with respect to such policy, net of expected recoveries under salvage and subrogation rights. For years ending after December 31, 2002, the amount of the expected loss, net of expected recoveries, is discounted based on a discount rate equal to the actual yield of the fixed-income portfolio held by the Company’s insurance subsidiaries at the end of the preceding fiscal quarter. Prior to 2003 MBIA Corp. used a flat discount rate. MBIA Corp. believes this

9

yield is an appropriate rate of return for calculating the present value of its reserves as it reflects the rate of return on the assets supporting future claim payments by MBIA Corp. When a case basis reserve is established for an insured obligation, MBIA Corp. continues to record premium revenue until it believes that premiums will no longer be collected on that obligation.

A number of variables are taken into account in establishing specific case basis reserves for individual policies. These variables include the creditworthiness of the underlying issuer of the insured obligation, whether the obligation is secured or unsecured and the expected recovery rates on the insured obligation, the projected cash flow or market value of any assets that support the insured obligation and the historical and projected loss rates on such assets. Factors that may affect the actual ultimate realized losses for any policy include the state of the economy, changes in interest rates, rates of inflation and the salvage values of specific collateral. The methodology used by the Company for determining when a case basis reserve is established may differ from other financial guarantee insurance companies, as well as from other property and casualty insurance enterprises.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) staff considered whether additional guidance with respect to accounting for financial guarantee insurance should be provided and has agreed to consider the accounting by insurers for financial guarantee insurance. As part of this project, the FASB will consider several aspects of the insurance accounting model for financial guarantee insurers, including loss recognition and reserve methodology. (See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses (LAE)” in Part II, Item 7).

In the event MBIA Corp. determines that it must pay a claim or that a claim is probable and estimable with respect to an insured issue, it places the issue on its “Classified List” and establishes a case basis reserve for that policy. As of December 31, 2006, MBIA Corp. had 42 issues on the Classified List for which it has established $276.8 million in aggregate net case reserves.

At December 31, 2006, case basis reserves established for three credits, a health care facility in Pennsylvania, a home equity credit and another mortgage backed obligation, comprised $217.3 million of the $276.8 million in total case basis reserves for future claims. The remaining case basis reserves are related to various insured obligations including collateralized debt obligations, mortgage-backed securities and obligations backed by manufactured housing. For more information on these insured issues and other insured exposures, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses (LAE)” in Part II, Item 7.

Both MBIA Illinois and CapMAC currently do not write new business. MBIA Corp. has reinsured their respective net liabilities on financial guarantee insurance business and maintains required reserves in connection therewith.

Management believes that MBIA Corp.’s reserves are adequate to cover the ultimate net cost of claims. However, because the reserves are based on management’s judgment and estimates, there can be no assurance that the ultimate liability will not exceed such estimates.

In an effort to mitigate losses, IPM is regularly involved in the ongoing remediation of credits that may involve, among other things, waivers or renegotiations of financial covenants or triggers, waivers of contractual provisions, the granting of consents, and the taking of various other remedial actions. The nature of any remedial action is based on the type of the insured issue and the nature and scope of the event giving rise to the remediation. In most cases, as part of any such remedial activity, MBIA Corp. is able to improve its security position and to obtain concessions from the issuer of the insured bonds. From time to time, the issuer of an MBIA Corp. insured bond may, with the consent of MBIA Corp., restructure the insured bonds by extending the term, increasing or decreasing the par amount or decreasing the related interest rate, with MBIA Corp. insuring the restructured bonds. If, as the result of a restructuring, MBIA Corp. estimates that it will suffer an ultimate loss on the restructured issue, MBIA Corp. will record a case basis reserve for the restructured issue or, if it has already recorded a case basis reserve, it will re-evaluate the impact of the restructuring on the posted reserve and adjust the size of the reserve accordingly.

From inception, MBIA Corp. has had 93 insured issues requiring claim and/or liquidity payments. There are currently six additional insured issues for which case loss reserves have been established for expected future claims but for which claims have not yet been paid. The Company’s experience is that early detection and continued involvement by IPM are crucial in avoiding or minimizing potential draws on the related insurance policy. There can be no assurance, however, that there will be no material losses in the future in respect of any issues guaranteed by MBIA Corp. or its subsidiaries or that the amount of reserves will be adequate to cover such losses.

Reinsurance

State insurance laws and regulations, as well as the rating agencies, who rate MBIA Corp., impose minimum capital requirements on financial guarantee companies, limiting the aggregate amount of insurance and the maximum size of any single risk exposure which

10

may be written. MBIA Corp. decreases the insured exposure in its portfolio and increases its capacity to write new business by using treaty and facultative reinsurance to reduce its gross liabilities on an aggregate and single risk basis. Additionally, MBIA Corp. has entered into agreements under which it is entitled to reimbursement of losses on its insured portfolio but which do not qualify as reinsurance under GAAP.

MBIA Corp.’s net retention on the policies it writes varies from time to time depending on its own business needs and the capacity available in the reinsurance market. From its reorganization in December 1986 through December 1987, MBIA Corp. reinsured a portion of each policy through quota and surplus share reinsurance treaties. Each treaty provides reinsurance protection with respect to policies written by MBIA Corp. during the term of the treaty, for the full term of the policy. Under its quota share treaty, MBIA Corp. ceded a fixed percentage of each policy insured. Since 1988, MBIA Corp. has entered into primarily surplus share treaties under which a variable percentage of risk over a minimum size is ceded, subject to a maximum percentage specified in the related treaty. Reinsurance ceded under the treaties is for the full term of the underlying policy.

MBIA Corp. also enters into facultative reinsurance arrangements from time to time primarily in connection with issues which, because of their size, require additional capacity beyond MBIA Corp.’s retention and treaty limits. Under these facultative arrangements, portions of MBIA Corp.’s liabilities are ceded on an issue-by-issue basis. MBIA Corp. may also use facultative arrangements as a means of managing its exposure to single issuers or counterparties to comply with regulatory and rating agency requirements, as well as internal underwriting and portfolio management criteria.

As a primary insurer, MBIA Corp. is required to honor its obligations to its policyholders whether or not its reinsurers and others perform their agreement obligations to MBIA Corp. The financial position and financial strength rating of all its reinsurers are monitored by MBIA Corp. on a regular basis. The downgrade or default of one or more of the Company’s reinsurers is not expected to have a material adverse impact on the Company’s ratings, financial condition or results of operations.

The following table shows the reinsurers providing reinsurance to MBIA measured by outstanding par ceded to and reinsurance recoverables from reinsurers by rating levels at December 31, 2006:

In May 2006, MBIA sold its 11.4% equity interest in RAM Holdings Inc., the holding company of RAM Reinsurance Company, Ltd., as part of RAM Holdings Inc.’s initial public offering.

In February 2004, the Company, together with RenaissanceRe Holdings, Ltd., Koch Financial Re, Ltd. and Partner Reinsurance Company Ltd., formed Channel Re, a new Bermuda-based financial guarantee reinsurance company rated triple-A by S&P and Moody’s. The Company invested $63.7 million for a 17.4% ownership interest in Channel Re. While Channel Reinsurance Ltd. (“Channel Re”) continues to be a triple-A rated reinsurer of the Company, S&P reaffirmed its negative outlook on Channel Re during the second quarter of 2006. MBIA does not expect S&P’s outlook on Channel Re to have a material negative impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. MBIA continues to own a 17.4% equity interest in Channel Re.

11

In February 2004, MBIA Corp. and Channel Re entered into arrangements whereby Channel Re agreed to provide committed reinsurance capacity to MBIA Corp. at least through June 30, 2008, a date which was later extended to June 30, 2009. Under treaty and facultative reinsurance arrangements MBIA Corp. agreed to cede to Channel Re and Channel Re agreed to assume from MBIA Corp. varying percentages of designated policies issued by MBIA Corp. The amount of any policy subject to the committed reinsurance arrangements is based on the type of risk insured and on other factors. The reinsurance arrangements provide Channel Re with certain preferential terms, including those related to ceding commissions. The treaty reinsurance arrangement was renewed in 2006.

MBIA Corp. may also look to reduce risks embedded in its insured portfolio by entering into derivative transactions or other types of hedging arrangements. In December 2004, MBIA Corp. executed a $550.8 million capital markets transaction in which it hedged a portion, or $275.8 million at closing, of the credit and market risk associated with its synthetic CDO portfolio. In 2004, MBIA Corp. received approval from the NYS Insurance Department for a derivative use plan which authorizes MBIA Corp. to hedge certain risks through the use of derivative instruments and may look to enter into hedging transactions to reduce risks on an individual and portfolio-wide basis. In 2006, MBIA Corp. entered into a fixed to floating swap arrangement pursuant to the derivative use plan related to a troubled housing credit in Texas. Interest expense savings resulting from the swap were reinvested into the credit, to improve the value of the underlying collateral, and reduce financial stress on the borrower.

AHERF Arrangements

In 1998, three reinsurers, Converium Reinsurance (North America) Inc. (“Converium”), AXA Re Finance S.A. (“ARF”) and Muenchener Rueckversicherungs-Gesellshaft (“Munich Re”) paid MBIA Corp. $170 million under three separate agreements (each, an “Excess-of-Loss Agreement” and, collectively, the “Excess-of-Loss Agreements”) in connection with losses MBIA Corp. incurred on $265 million of MBIA-insured bonds issued by the Pittsburgh-based Alleghany Health, Education and Research Foundation (“AHERF”). The Excess-of-Loss Agreements were structured as three successive excess-of-loss facilities that aggregated to $170 million. Under the Excess-of-Loss Agreements, Converium paid MBIA Corp. $70 million and Munich Re and ARF each paid MBIA Corp. $50 million.

In connection with the arrangements for the Excess-of-Loss Agreements, MBIA Corp. entered into quota share agreements with Munich Re, ARF and Converium (each a “Quota Share Agreement” and, collectively, the “Quota Share Agreements”). Under the Quota Share Agreements, MBIA Corp. agreed to cede to the three reinsurers new business written with an aggregate par sufficient to generate $297 million in gross premiums over a six year period ending October 1, 2004. Of the $297 million in premiums to be ceded under the Quota Share Agreements, MBIA Corp. agreed to cede to Converium cash premiums equal to $102 million, to ARF adjusted gross premiums of $97 million and to Munich Re adjusted gross premiums of $98 million over this period.

Under separate agreements, to which MBIA Corp. was not a party, Converium reinsured directly and indirectly to ARF (the “Converium-ARF Retrocession Agreements”) the risk that it had assumed from MBIA Corp. under its Quota Share Agreements with MBIA Corp. for losses in excess of $13.1 million. ARF contended that, in connection with its agreement to assume this risk from Converium under the Converium-ARF Retrocession Agreements, there was an oral agreement with MBIA Corp. under which MBIA Corp. would replace ARF as a reinsurer to Converium by no later than October 2005.

In October 2004, MBIA Corp. commuted and assumed from ARF the policies that ARF had assumed directly under its Quota Share Agreements with MBIA Corp. discussed above (the “MBIA-ARF Agreements”). At the same time, MBIA Corp. also assumed from ARF all of the risk that ARF assumed from Converium under the Converium-ARF Retrocession Agreements. AXA RE, S.A (“AXA RE”), ARF’s parent, in turn agreed to reinsure MBIA Corp. for all losses in excess of $96.9 million assumed by MBIA Corp. from ARF under the Converium-ARF Retrocession Agreements up to an aggregate amount of $90 million. ARF paid MBIA Corp. $10 million for assuming from it the risk under the Converium-ARF Retrocession Agreements, and MBIA Corp. paid AXA RE $1 million for reinsuring MBIA Corp. for all losses in excess of $96.9 million assumed by MBIA Corp. from ARF under the Converium-ARF Retrocession Agreements up to an aggregate amount of $90 million.

In addition to the $10 million that MBIA Corp. received as described above, MBIA Corp. received approximately $19.5 million related to the commutation of the MBIA-ARF Agreement, consisting of statutory unearned premium reserves of $42.5 million less refunded ceding commissions of $13.9 million and fees of $9.1 million. In addition, MBIA Corp. will receive future installment premiums with a present value of approximately $21.5 million in connection with the commuted policies. As a result of this transaction, MBIA Corp. reassumed $21.3 billion in aggregate insured par. The commutation of the MBIA-ARF Agreement and the assumption by MBIA Corp. from ARF of the risk under the Converium-ARF Retrocession Agreements were done in order, among other reasons, to settle and resolve the disputes with ARF regarding the alleged oral agreement. In addition, MBIA Corp. entered into

12

these agreements and agreed to assume the related policies due to the fact that it no longer received rating agency capital credit in connection with the exposures ceded to ARF and Converium because ARF no longer has a financial strength rating and the financial strength rating of Converium had been downgraded.

In October 2004, the Company’s management recommended that the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors undertake an investigation of the Excess-of-Loss Agreements and the Quota Share Agreements, including whether an oral agreement existed between MBIA Corp. and ARF that MBIA Corp. would assume the risk that Converium retroceded to ARF under the Converium-ARF Retrocession Agreements. The Audit Committee retained outside counsel and initiated an investigation in October 2004. On March 8, 2005, the Company announced that it was restating its financial statements for 1998 and subsequent years to correct the accounting for the transactions with Converium based on, among other considerations, a determination by the outside counsel investigation that it appeared likely that an oral agreement or understanding with ARF was made in 1998. The Company reflected this correction in the consolidated financial statements of its original Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. At that time, the Company believed that the accounting for the Excess-of-Loss Agreements and Quota Share Agreements with Munich Re and ARF was appropriate under SFAS 113.

On November 8, 2005, the Company announced its decision to correct and restate its previously issued financial statements for 1998 and subsequent years in connection with then-pending settlements of investigations by the SEC and the NYAG regarding the Excess-of-Loss Agreements and the Quota Share Agreements entered into with Munich Re and ARF. On January 25, 2007, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC in which the Company disclosed that it had concluded civil settlements with the SEC, the NYAG and the NYSID regarding these investigations. See “Legal Proceedings” in Part I, Item 3 for more information on the regulatory investigation.

Intercompany Reinsurance Arrangements

MBIA Corp. has entered into a reinsurance agreement with MBIA UK providing for MBIA Corp.’s reimbursement of the losses incurred by MBIA UK in excess of a specified threshold and a net worth maintenance agreement in which MBIA Corp. agrees to maintain the net worth of MBIA UK, to remain its sole shareholder and not to pledge its shares. Under the reinsurance agreement, MBIA Corp. has agreed to reimburse MBIA UK on an excess-of-loss basis for losses incurred in each calendar year for net retained insurance liability, subject to certain contract limitations. Under the net worth maintenance agreement, MBIA Corp. agrees to maintain a minimum capital and surplus position at MBIA UK in accordance with United Kingdom and New York State legal requirements.

MBIA Corp. and MBIA Assurance have also entered into a reinsurance agreement providing for MBIA Corp.’s reimbursement of the losses incurred by MBIA Assurance in excess of a specified threshold and a net worth maintenance agreement in which MBIA Corp. agrees to maintain the net worth of MBIA Assurance, to remain its sole shareholder and not to pledge its shares. Under the reinsurance agreement, MBIA Corp. has agreed to reimburse MBIA Assurance on an excess-of-loss basis for losses incurred in each calendar year for net retained insurance liability, subject to certain contract limitations. Under the net worth maintenance agreement, MBIA Corp. agrees to maintain a minimum capital and surplus position in accordance with French and New York State legal requirements.

MBIA Corp. and MBIA Illinois have entered into a reinsurance agreement under which MBIA Corp. reinsured 100% of all business written by MBIA Illinois, net of cessions by MBIA Illinois to third-party reinsurers, in exchange for MBIA Illinois’ transfer of the assets underlying the related unearned premium and contingency reserves. Pursuant to such reinsurance agreement, MBIA Corp. reinsured all of the net exposure of $30.9 billion, or approximately 68% of the gross debt service outstanding, of the municipal bond insurance portfolio of MBIA Illinois, the remaining 32% having been previously ceded to treaty and facultative reinsurers of MBIA Illinois. In 1990, 10% of this portfolio was ceded back to MBIA Illinois to comply with regulatory requirements. Effective January 1, 1999, MBIA Corp. and MBIA Illinois entered into a replacement reinsurance agreement whereby MBIA Corp. agreed to accept as reinsurance from MBIA Illinois 100% of the net liabilities and other obligations of MBIA Illinois, for losses paid on or after that date, thereby eliminating the 10% retrocession arrangement previously in place.

MBIA Corp. and CapMAC have entered into a reinsurance agreement, effective April 1, 1998, under which MBIA Corp. has agreed to reinsure 100% of the net liability and other obligations of CapMAC in exchange for CapMAC’s payment of a premium equal to the ceded reserves and contingency reserves. Pursuant to such reinsurance agreement with CapMAC, MBIA Corp. reinsured all of CapMAC’s then-current net exposure of $31.6 billion, or approximately 78% of CapMAC’s gross debt service then outstanding, the remaining 22% having been previously ceded to treaty and facultative reinsurers of CapMAC.

13

MBIA Corp. expects to enter into a reinsurance agreement and net worth maintenance agreement with MBIA Mexico prior to commencing operations in Mexico. Under these agreements, MBIA Corp. expects to reinsure 100% of the business underwritten by MBIA Mexico and to agree to maintain the amount of capital required by applicable law or regulation.

Insurance Regulation

MBIA Corp. is licensed to do insurance business in, and is subject to insurance regulation and supervision by, the State of New York (its state of incorporation), the 49 other states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of France. MBIA Assurance is licensed to do insurance business in France and is subject to regulation under the corporation and insurance laws of the Republic of France. MBIA Assurance has used the provisions of the EC Third Non-life Insurance Directive (No. 92/49/EEC) to operate in the United Kingdom and in some of the other European Economic Area jurisdictions, both on a services and branch basis and is, to a limited extent, subject to supervision by the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority. MBIA UK is licensed to do insurance business in the United Kingdom and is subject to the insurance regulation and supervision of the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority. MBIA UK has used the provisions of the EC Third Non-life Insurance Directive to provide cross border services in all jurisdictions in the European Economic Area. Once MBIA Mexico is established, it will be subject to the regulation and supervision of the Mexican Ministry of Finance and Public Credit and the Mexican Insurance and Bonds Commission (Comisión Nacional de Seguros y Fianzas or “CNSF”).

The extent of state insurance regulation and supervision varies by jurisdiction, but New York, Illinois and most other jurisdictions have laws and regulations prescribing minimum standards of solvency, including minimum capital requirements, and business conduct which must be maintained by insurance companies. These laws prescribe permitted classes and concentrations of investments. In addition, some state laws and regulations require the approval or filing of policy forms and rates. MBIA Corp. is required to file detailed annual financial statements with the NYSID and similar supervisory agencies in each of the other jurisdictions in which it is licensed. The operations and accounts of MBIA Corp. are subject to examination by these regulatory agencies at regular intervals.

MBIA Corp. is licensed to provide financial guarantee insurance under Article 69 of the New York Insurance Law. Article 69 defines financial guarantee insurance to include any guarantee under which loss is payable upon proof of occurrence of financial loss to an insured as a result of certain events. These events include the failure of any obligor on or any issuer of any debt instrument or other monetary obligation to pay principal, interest, premium, dividend or purchase price of or on such instrument or obligation when due. Under Article 69, MBIA Corp. is permitted to transact financial guarantee insurance, surety insurance and credit insurance and such other kinds of business to the extent necessarily or properly incidental to the kinds of insurance which MBIA Corp. is authorized to transact. In addition, MBIA Corp. is empowered to assume or reinsure the kinds of insurance described above.

As a financial guarantee insurer, MBIA Corp. is required by the laws of New York, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, New Jersey and Wisconsin to maintain contingency reserves on its municipal bond, asset-backed securities and other financial guarantee liabilities. Under New Jersey, Illinois and Wisconsin regulations, contributions by such an insurer to its contingency reserves are required to equal 50% of earned premiums on its municipal bond business. Under New York law, such an insurer is required to contribute to contingency reserves 50% of premiums as they are earned on policies written prior to July 1, 1989 (net of reinsurance), and, with respect to policies written on and after July 1, 1989, must make contributions over a period of 15 or 20 years (based on issue type), or until the contingency reserve for such insured issues equals the greater of 50% of premiums written for the relevant category of insurance or a percentage of the principal guaranteed, varying from 0.55% to 2.5%, depending upon the type of obligation guaranteed (net of collateral reinsurance, refunding, refinancings and certain insured securities). California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa and Maryland laws impose a generally similar requirement, and in California the insurance commissioner can require an insurer to maintain additional reserves if the commissioner determines that the insurer’s reserves are inadequate. In each of these states, MBIA Corp. may apply for release of portions of the contingency reserves in certain circumstances.

The laws and regulations of these states also limit both the aggregate and individual securities risks that MBIA Corp. may insure on a net basis based on the type of obligations insured. California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland and New York, among other things, limit insured average annual debt service on insured municipal bonds with respect to a single entity and backed by a single revenue source (net of qualifying collateral and reinsurance) to 10% of policyholders’ surplus and contingency reserves. California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland and New York also limit the net insured unpaid principal on a municipal bond issued by a single entity and backed by a single revenue source to 75% of policyholders’ surplus and contingency reserves. California, Connecticut, Maryland and New York, among other things, require that the lesser of the insured average debt service and the insured unpaid principal (reduced by the extent to which unpaid principal of the supporting assets and, for New York and California, provided the insured risk is investment grade, exceed the insured unpaid principal), divided by nine, on each issue of asset-backed securities issued by a single entity shall not exceed 10% of policyholders’ surplus and contingency reserves, while Florida limits

14

insured unpaid principal for any one risk to 10% of policyholders’ surplus and contingency reserves. In New Jersey, Virginia and Wisconsin, the average annual debt service on any single issue of municipal bonds (net of reinsurance) is limited to 10% of policyholders’ surplus. Other states that do not explicitly regulate financial guarantee or municipal bond insurance do impose single risk limits which are similar in effect to the foregoing.

Under New York, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Wisconsin law, aggregate insured unpaid principal and interest under policies insuring municipal bonds (in the case of New York, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois and Maryland, net of reinsurance) are limited to certain multiples of policyholders’ surplus and contingency reserves. New York, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland and other states impose a 300:1 limit for insured municipal bonds, although more restrictive limits on bonds of other types do exist. For example, New York, California, Connecticut, Florida and Maryland impose a 100:1 limit for certain types of non-municipal bonds. Under New York, California, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland and New Jersey law, aggregate insured unpaid principal and interest under policies insuring asset-backed securities (again, in the case of New York, California, Connecticut, Florida and Maryland, net of reinsurance) are limited to certain multiples of policyholders’ surplus and contingency reserves. New York, Maryland, California, Connecticut, and other states impose a 150:1 limit for insured investment grade asset-backed securities, although more restrictive limits on asset-backed securities of other types exist. For example, New York, California, Connecticut, Florida and Maryland impose a 50:1 limit for non-investment grade asset-backed securities.

The Company, MBIA Corp., MBIA Illinois, and CapMAC also are subject to regulation under insurance holding company statutes of New York, Illinois and other jurisdictions in which MBIA Corp., MBIA Illinois, and CapMAC are licensed to write insurance. The requirements of holding company statutes vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but generally require insurance holding companies, such as the Company, and their insurance subsidiaries, to register and file certain reports describing, among other information, their capital structure, ownership and financial condition. The holding company statutes also generally require prior approval of changes in control, of certain dividends and other inter-corporate transfers of assets, and of certain transactions between insurance companies, their parents and affiliates. The holding company statutes impose standards on certain transactions with related companies, which include, among other requirements, that all transactions be fair and reasonable and those transactions not in the ordinary course of business exceeding specified limits receive prior regulatory approval. Once established, MBIA Mexico will be required to register the financial guaranty insurance products it intends to provide with the CNSF, file periodically certain financial condition and other reports with the CNSF, comply with minimum capital requirements, and, in general, comply with Mexican laws and regulations applicable to financial guaranty insurers. Prior approval by the NYSID is required for any entity seeking to acquire “control” of the Company, MBIA Corp., or CapMAC. Prior approval by the Illinois Department of Insurance is required for any entity seeking to acquire “control” of the Company, MBIA Corp., MBIA Illinois, or CapMAC. In many states, including New York and Illinois, “control” is presumed to exist if 10% or more of the voting securities of the insurer are owned or controlled by an entity, although the supervisory agency may find that “control” in fact does or does not exist when an entity owns or controls either a lesser or greater amount of securities. MBIA Mexico would require the prior approval of the Mexican Ministry of Finance and Public Credit in order to transfer the shares it would hold in MBIA Mexico.

The laws of New York regulate the payment of dividends by MBIA Corp. and provide that a New York domestic stock property/casualty insurance company (such as MBIA Corp.) may not declare or distribute dividends except out of statutory earned surplus. New York law provides that the sum of (i) the amount of dividends declared or distributed during the preceding 12-month period and (ii) the dividend to be declared may not exceed the lesser of (a) 10% of policyholders’ surplus, as shown by the most recent statutory financial statement on file with the NYSID, or (b) 100% of adjusted net investment income for such 12-month period (the net investment income for such 12-month period plus the excess, if any, of net investment income over dividends declared or distributed during the two-year period preceding such 12-month period), unless the New York Superintendent of Insurance approves a greater dividend distribution based upon a finding that the insurer will retain sufficient surplus to support its obligations and writings. See “Note 16: Insurance Dividends and Capital Requirements” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of MBIA Inc. and Subsidiaries in Part II, Item 8.

The foregoing dividend limitations are determined in accordance with Statutory Accounting Practices (“SAP”), which generally produce statutory earnings in amounts less than earnings computed in accordance with GAAP. Similarly, policyholders’ surplus, computed on a SAP basis, will normally be less than net worth computed on a GAAP basis. See “Note 9: Statutory Accounting Practices” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of MBIA Inc. and Subsidiaries for additional information.

MBIA Corp., MBIA Illinois, and CapMAC are exempt from assessments by the insurance guarantee funds in the majority of the states in which they do business. Guarantee fund laws in most states require insurers transacting business in the state to participate in guarantee associations, which pay claims of policyholders and third-party claimants against impaired or insolvent insurance

15

companies doing business in the state. In most states, insurers licensed to write only municipal bond insurance, financial guarantee insurance and other forms of surety insurance are exempt from assessment by these funds and their policyholders are prohibited from making claims on these funds. In Mexico, no statutory guarantee funds or similar entities exist for insurance companies; therefore the obligations of MBIA Mexico would not be covered by any guarantee funds in the event that it became insolvent.

INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Company’s investment management services operations provide an array of products and services to the public, not-for-profit and corporate sectors. Such products and services are provided primarily through wholly owned subsidiaries of MBIA Asset Management and include cash management, discretionary asset management and fund administration services and investment agreement, medium-term note and commercial paper programs related to funding assets for third-party clients and for investment purposes. The investment management services operations are comprised of three operating segments: asset/liability products, which include investment agreements and medium-term notes (“MTNs”) not related to the conduit programs; advisory services, which consist of third-party and related-party fee-based asset management; and conduit programs.

Asset/Liability Products

MBIA Asset Management’s assets/liability products segment raises funds for investment management through the activities of IMC, GFL and EAAL. IMC, along with MBIA Inc., provides customized investment agreements, guaranteed by MBIA Corp., for bond proceeds and other public funds for such purposes as construction, loan origination, escrow and debt service or other reserve fund requirements. It also provides customized products for funds that are invested as part of asset-backed or structured product transactions. MBIA Asset Management also raises funds through its affiliate GFL. GFL raises funds for management through the issuance of MTNs with varying maturities (“GFL MTNs”), which are in turn guaranteed by MBIA Corp. GFL lends the proceeds of these GFL MTN issuances to the Company (“GFL Loans”). Under agreements between the Company and MBIA Corp., the Company invests the proceeds of the investment agreements and GFL Loans in eligible investments, which consist of investment grade securities with a minimum average Double-A credit quality rating. MBIA Inc. primarily purchases domestic securities, which are pledged to MBIA Corp. as security for its guarantees on investment agreements and MTNs. Additionally, MBIA Inc. loans a portion of the proceeds from investment agreements and MTNs to EAAL, which primarily purchases foreign assets as permitted under the Company’s investment guidelines.

MBIA Asset Management manages the programs within a number of risk and liquidity parameters monitored by the Risk Management Division, the Executive Market/Investment Committee and the rating agencies, and maintains backup liquidity in order to ensure sufficient funds are available to make all payments due on the investment agreement and MTN obligations and to fund operating expenses. In addition, the Company has made a capital investment in these programs, which is available at any time to fund cash needs. In the event that the value of the assets is insufficient to repay the investment agreement and MTN obligations when due, the Company may incur a loss.

The Company manages its balance sheet to protect against a number of risks inherent in its business including liquidity risk, market risk (principally interest rate risk), credit risk, operational risk and legal risk. (See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Market Risk” in Part II, Item 7.) The assets supporting the MBIA Asset Management programs are managed with the goal of matching the duration of the invested assets, including hedges, to the duration of the investment agreement and MTN obligations in order to minimize market and liquidity risk.

MBIA Asset Management uses derivative financial instruments to manage interest rate risk, credit risk and foreign currency risk. Credit default swaps are entered into to hedge credit risk or to replicate investments in cash assets consistent with the Company’s risk objectives and credit guidelines for its investment management business. Forward delivery agreements are offered and periodically sold to clients. The Company has established policies limiting the amount, type and counterparty concentration of such instruments. A source of liquidity risk arises from the ability of some investment agreement counterparties to withdraw monies on dates other than those specified in the related draw-down schedule. This liquidity risk is somewhat mitigated by provisions in certain of the investment agreements that limit an issuer’s ability to draw on the funds and by risk management procedures that require the regular re-evaluation and re-projection of draw-down schedules. Investments are restricted to fixed-income securities with an average credit quality rating of Double-A and minimum credit quality rating of investment grade. Based upon management’s projections, MBIA Asset Management maintains liquidity sources which are more than sufficient to meet its projected short-term liquidity needs.

Advisory Services

In its advisory services segment, MBIA Asset Management offers cash management, customized asset management and investment consulting services to local governments, school districts and other institutional clients through MBIA-MISC, an SEC-registered investment adviser.

16

MBIA Asset Management offers fixed-income asset management services for the investment portfolios of the Company, MBIA Corp. and other affiliates through CMC, an SEC-registered investment adviser and National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) member firm and through AM-UK, a Financial Services Authority registered investment advisor based in London and formed in November 2004. CMC and AM-UK also provide investment management services for third parties on a fee for service basis. Third-party clients include corporations, pension funds, municipalities, insurance companies and mutual funds, as well as structured programs such as collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) and structured investment vehicles (“SIVs”). Structured programs are not guaranteed by the Company or MBIA Corp., and program profits are shared among the investors and the manager.

During 2006, the Company structured two SIVs, Hudson-Thames Capital Limited and East-Fleet Finance Limited, which issue commercial paper and medium-term notes and invest the proceeds in high quality eligible assets. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides asset management and administrative services to these companies and will earn fees related to these services. The Company also is a minority investor in Hudson-Thames Capital Limited. MBIA Asset Management views SIVs as a promising area of growth in which it can apply its credit risk management and asset/liability skills toward managing third-party programs. Neither the obligations issued by Hudson-Thames Capital Limited nor those issued by East Fleet Finance Limited are guaranteed by MBIA, nor do MBIA’s creditors have any rights to the assets of those SIVs.

Conduits

MBIA Asset Management also owns and administers several conduit financing vehicles, Triple-A One Funding Corp., Meridian Funding Company, LLC and Polaris Funding Company, LLC (together, the “Conduits”). The Conduits, which issue primarily commercial paper and MTNs, are reflected in the consolidated financial statements of the Company. (See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation – Investment Management Services” in Part II, Item 7).

The Conduits are used by banks and other financial institutions to raise funds for their customers in the capital markets. The Conduits provide funding for multiple customers through special purpose vehicles that issue primarily commercial paper and MTNs. The proceeds from the issuance of the commercial paper or MTNs are used to either make loans to customers which are secured by certain assets or to purchase the assets from the customers. All transactions in the Conduits are insured by MBIA Corp. and are subject to MBIA Corp.’s standard underwriting process.

It is the Company’s policy to obtain an underlying rating from both Moody’s and S&P for each new transaction prior to the execution of such transactions within the Conduits. An underlying rating is the implied rating for the transaction without giving consideration to the MBIA Corp. guarantee. All transactions must be rated investment grade by both S&P and Moody’s before they can be purchased into a Conduit. The weighted-average underlying ratings for transactions currently funded in the Conduits were “A” by S&P and “A1” by Moody’s at the time such transactions were funded in the Conduits. The Company estimates that the current weighted-average underlying ratings of all outstanding Conduit transactions were “A+” by S&P and “A1” by Moody’s as of December 31, 2006.

As a result of having to adhere to MBIA Corp.’s underwriting standards and criteria, Conduit transactions have, in general, the same underlying ratings that similar non-Conduit transactions guaranteed by MBIA Corp. have at the time they are closed. Like all credits underwritten by MBIA Corp., the underlying ratings on Conduit transactions may be downgraded by either one or both rating agencies after they are closed. In general, the underlying ratings on Conduit transactions have been downgraded no more frequently than similar non-Conduit transactions guaranteed by MBIA Corp.

The Conduits enter into derivative instruments primarily as economic hedges against interest rate and currency risks. It is expected that any change in the market value of the derivative instruments will be offset by a change in the market value of the hedged assets or liabilities. However, because the investments are accounted for as held-to-maturity, no change in market value, with the exception of the change in value of foreign currency assets due to changes in foreign currency rates, is recorded in the Company’s financial statements. Any change in the market value of derivative instruments that are not accounted for as hedges under SFAS 133 will be recorded as net gains or losses on derivative instruments and foreign exchange in the Company’s consolidated income statement.

The Conduits have no impact on the Company’s liquidity requirements because Triple-A One Funding Corp. has independently entered into liquidity agreements with third-party providers and because the assets and liabilities of Meridian and Polaris are structured on a match-funded basis.

At December 31, 2006, there were $4.3 billion of assets (the majority of which are investments valued at amortized cost) in the Conduits and $4.2 billion of liabilities issued through the Conduits.

17

Investments and Investment Policy

The Finance Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approves the Company’s general investment objectives and policies, and also reviews more specific investment guidelines. CMC manages all of MBIA Corp.’s domestic consolidated investment portfolios and substantially all of the Company’s investment portfolios, and AM-UK manages the foreign assets of MBIA Corp.’s subsidiaries and EAAL. Investment objectives, policies and guidelines related to CMC’s and AM-UK’s investment activity on behalf of MBIA Corp. and its insurance company affiliates are also subject to review and approval by the respective Investment Committees of the Boards of Directors of MBIA Corp. and each of its insurance company affiliates.

To continue to provide strong capital resources and claims-paying capabilities for its insurance operations, the investment objectives and policies for insurance operations set preservation of capital as the primary objective, subject to an appropriate degree of liquidity. Maximization of after-tax investment income and investment returns is an important but secondary objective. The insurance operations assets are managed by CMC and AM-UK subject to agreements between these asset management entities and MBIA Corp. and its subsidiaries.

Investment objectives, policies and guidelines related to MBIA Asset Management’s asset/liability products segment are also subject to review and approval by the Finance Committee of the Board of Directors and the Executive Market/Investment Committee. The primary investment objectives of MBIA Asset Management in these businesses are to preserve capital, to achieve an investment duration that closely approximates the expected duration of related liabilities, and to maintain appropriate liquidity.

The Company’s consolidated investment portfolio as shown on its balance sheet at December 31, 2006 was $37.1 billion, of which $5.2 billion represented held-to-maturity investments at amortized cost.

The duration of the insurance fixed-income portfolio was 4.9 and 5.3 years as of December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005. The average maturity of the insurance fixed-income portfolio, excluding short-term investments, as of December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005 was 5.83 years and 7.96 years, respectively.

The Company’s Investment Portfolio includes investments that are insured by MBIA Corp. (“MBIA Insured Investments”). As of December 31, 2006, MBIA Insured Investments, excluding Conduit investments, at fair value represented $3.0 billion or 8% of the total Investment Portfolio. Conduit investments represented $3.8 billion or 10% of the total Investment Portfolio.

Investment Management Services Regulation

Subsidiaries of MBIA Asset Management are subject to various federal and state securities and investment regulation. As an SEC-registered investment adviser and an NASD member firm, CMC is subject to the requirements of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, a Federal statute which regulates registered investment advisers, and to NASD rules and regulations. As an advisor to registered mutual fund investment companies, CMC is also responsible for compliance with the Investment Company Act of 1940. As sponsor/administrator of pooled investment programs, MBIA-MISC is subject to the requirements of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as well as certain state laws governing the operation of and permitted investments in local government investment pools in the various states. The activities of AM-UK are subject to supervision by the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority.

MUNICIPAL SERVICES

The Company discontinued its municipal service operations in 2006. In the third quarter of 2006, MBIA finalized plans to sell MBIA MuniServices Company and certain of its wholly owned subsidiaries (“MuniServices”) to an investor group led by the management of MuniServices. MuniServices provides revenue enhancement services and products to public-sector clients nationwide consisting of discovery, audit, collections/recovery and information services. The Company completed the sale of MuniServices on December 5, 2006. The municipal services operations also included Capital Asset Holdings GP, Inc. and certain affiliated entities (“Capital Asset”), a servicer of delinquent tax liens. Effective December 31, 2006, MBIA sold all of the Capital Asset operating entities, including any remaining non-Pittsburgh liens and nationwide real estate owned by such entities, to a third party company that is engaged in tax lien servicing and collection and that had been overseeing the servicing operations of Capital Asset since July of 2006. In addition, in the fourth quarter the Company entered into an agreement to sell its Pittsburgh tax liens back to the city of Pittsburgh for $6.5 million. The Company no longer has any guaranteed tax lien securitizations outstanding and no longer owns or services tax liens originated by Capital Asset. Results for the Company’s Capital Asset operations, included in the corporate segment in the third quarter of 2006, are now included in discontinued operations.

COMPETITION

The financial guarantee insurance business is highly competitive. Several other monoline insurance companies compete directly against MBIA Corp. in writing financial guarantee insurance, all of which, like MBIA Corp., have triple-A financial strength ratings

18

from Moody’s and S&P. In addition, there are several other monoline insurance companies which compete with MBIA Corp. in writing financial guarantee insurance as a primary insurer which have lower ratings. MBIA Corp. also competes with composite (multi-line) insurers.

Financial guarantee insurance also competes with other forms of credit enhancement, including senior-subordinated structures, credit derivatives, over-collateralization, letters of credit and guarantees (for example, mortgage guarantees where pools of mortgages secure debt service payments) provided by banks and other financial institutions, some of which are governmental agencies or have been assigned the highest credit ratings awarded by one or more of the major rating agencies. Letters of credit are most often issued for periods of less than 10 years, although there is no legal restriction on the issuance of letters of credit having longer terms. Thus, financial institutions and banks issuing letters of credit compete directly with MBIA Corp. to guarantee short-term notes and bonds with a maturity of less than 10 years. To the extent that banks providing credit enhancement may begin to issue letters of credit with commitments longer than 10 years, the competitive position of financial guarantee insurers, such as MBIA Corp., could be adversely affected. Letters of credit are also frequently used to assure the liquidity of a short-term put option for a long-term bond issue. This assurance of liquidity effectively confers on such issues, for the short term, the credit standing of the financial institution providing the facility, thereby competing with MBIA Corp. and other financial guarantee insurers in providing interest cost savings on such issues. Other highly rated institutions, including pension funds and government sponsored entities, also offer third-party credit enhancement on asset-backed and municipal obligations. Financial guarantee insurance and other forms of credit enhancement also compete in nearly all instances with the issuer’s alternative of foregoing credit enhancement and paying a higher interest rate. If the interest savings from insurance or another form of credit enhancement are not greater than the cost of such credit enhancement, the issuer will generally choose to issue bonds without third-party enhancement.

Certain characteristics of the triple-A rated financial guarantee insurance business act as barriers-to-entry to potential new competitors. For example, there are minimum capital requirements imposed on a financial guarantee insurance company by the rating agencies to obtain and maintain triple-A financial strength ratings and these capital requirements may deter other companies from entering this market. However, there can be no assurance that these capital requirements will deter potential competitors from entering this market or that the market may not increasingly accept guarantees provided by Double-A or lower rated insurers who have less stringent capital requirements. In addition, under New York law, multi-line insurers are prohibited from writing financial guarantee insurance in New York State. See “Part I, Item 1. Business—Insurance Regulation.” However, there can be no assurance that major multi-line insurers or other financial institutions will not participate in financial guarantee insurance in the future, either directly or through monoline subsidiaries.

RATING AGENCIES

Moody’s, S&P, Fitch and RII perform periodic reviews of MBIA Corp. and other companies providing financial guarantee insurance. In rating financial guarantee companies, rating agencies focus on qualitative and quantitative characteristics in five key areas. Those are (1) franchise value and business strategy; (2) insurance portfolio characteristics; (3) capital adequacy; (4) profitability; and (5) financial flexibility. Each agency has its own ratings criteria for financial guarantors and employs proprietary models to assess MBIA’s risk adjusted leverage, risk concentrations and financial performance relative to the agency’s triple-A standards. Several of the agencies also assess MBIA’s corporate governance and factor this into their rating assessment.

The rating agencies have confirmed their triple-A financial strength ratings and stable rating outlook assigned to MBIA Corp., CapMAC, MBIA Illinois, MBIA Assurance and MBIA UK in every year since those ratings were first assigned. MBIA Mexico is expected to achieve the same financial strength ratings. The ratings for MBIA Illinois and CapMAC are based in significant part on the reinsurance agreements between MBIA Corp. and MBIA Illinois and MBIA Corp. and CapMAC, respectively. The ratings of MBIA UK and MBIA Assurance are based in significant part on the reinsurance agreements and net worth maintenance agreements MBIA Corp. has entered into with both MBIA UK and MBIA Assurance. See “Part I, Item 1. Business-Reinsurance.”

In October 2005, Moody’s announced that it was undertaking a review of what it described as the non-core activities of financial guaranty insurance companies in order to assess the impact of such activities on the overall credit profile of financial guarantors. In its announcement, Moody’s identified non-core activities as including investment management and related services and sponsored medium-term note programs, businesses that MBIA engages in as part of its investment management services operations. In December of 2006, Moody’s published the findings of its review (Moody’s Evaluates Financial Guarantors’ Non-Core Businesses, Moody’s Special Comment, December 2006). The report introduced its general framework for analyzing non-financial guarantee activities and established what it defined as “materiality benchmarks” to assess the contribution of these activities to total firm net revenues, economic capital usage and operational leverage. Moody’s concluded that at their current level, MBIA’s non-core activities do not generate undue risk and do not present a threat to MBIA’s ratings. Management’s projection for growth in activities which Moody’s described as non-core would not lead to the Moody’s materiality benchmarks being exceeded in the foreseeable future.

19

However, the Company cannot predict the potential for Moody’s to revise its materiality benchmarks or establish additional measures, which could impact MBIA’s ability to grow its investment management services operations.

CAPITAL FACILITIES

The Company has various soft capital credit facilities, such as lines of credit and equity-based facilities at its disposal, which further support its claims-paying resources.

MBIA Corp. is party to a Credit Agreement, dated as of December 29, 1989 (the “Credit Agreement”), with various highly-rated banks to provide MBIA Corp. with an unconditional, irrevocable line of credit to cover losses in excess of a specified amount with respect to its public finance policies. The line of credit is available to be drawn upon by MBIA Corp., in an amount up to $450 million, after MBIA Corp. has incurred cumulative losses (net of any recoveries) in excess of $500 million and 5% of average annual debt service in respect of MBIA Corp.’s public finance policies. The obligation to repay loans made under the Credit Agreement is a limited recourse obligation of MBIA Corp. payable solely from, and secured by a pledge of, recoveries realized on defaulted insured public finance obligations, from certain pledged installment premiums and other collateral. Borrowings under the Credit Agreement are repayable on the expiration date of the Credit Agreement. The current expiration date of the Credit Agreement is March 31, 2015. The Credit Agreement contains covenants that, among other things, restrict MBIA Corp.’s ability to encumber assets or merge or consolidate with another entity.

MBIA Corp. has access to $400 million of Money Market Committed Preferred Custodial Trust securities (“CPCT Securities”) issued by eight trusts which were created for the primary purpose of issuing CPCT Securities and investing the proceeds in high quality commercial paper or short-term U.S. Government obligations. MBIA Corp. has a put option to sell to the trusts the perpetual preferred stock of MBIA Corp. If MBIA Corp. exercises its put option, the trusts will transfer the proceeds to MBIA Corp. in exchange for the preferred stock that will be held by the trusts. The trusts will hold the preferred stock and distribute the preferred dividends to the holders of the CPCT securities. MBIA Corp. has the right to redeem the preferred stock, and then put the preferred stock back to the trusts again, indefinitely. Any preferred stock issued by MBIA Corp. would be non-cumulative unless MBIA Corp. pays dividends on its common stock, during which time the dividends on its preferred stock would be cumulative. Preferred stockholders would have rights that are subordinated to insurance claims, as well as to general unsecured creditors, but senior to any common stockholders of MBIA Corp. The trusts are vehicles for providing MBIA Corp. the opportunity to access new capital at its sole discretion through the exercise of the put options. The trusts are rated “AA” by S&P and “Aa2” by Moody’s. To date, MBIA Corp. has not exercised its put options under any of these arrangements.

At December 31, 2006, MBIA maintained a revolving credit facility totaling $500 million with a group of highly rated global banks. During the second quarter of 2006, the Company negotiated more favorable terms of the facility, including an extension of the maturity from April 2010 to May 2011. The credit facility contains covenants that, among other things, restrict the Company’s ability to encumber assets or merge or consolidate with another entity and require that the Company maintain a minimum net worth and a maximum debt-to-capital ratio. The expiration date for the facility is May 12, 2011. As of December 31, 2006, there were no balances outstanding under this facility.

From time to time, MBIA accesses the capital markets to support the growth of its businesses. As such, in June 2003, MBIA filed a $500 million registration statement on Form S-3 with the SEC utilizing a “shelf” registration process. In November 2004, the Company completed its $350 million debt issuance of senior notes and currently has in effect a shelf registration with the SEC for $150 million. This shelf registration permits the Company to issue various debt and equity securities described in the prospectus filed as part of the registration statement. The Company’s Board of Directors has approved the filing of a new registration statement in an amount up to $800 million, which will replace and cancel remaining balances on all prior registration statements filed with the SEC. The Company expects to file the new registration statement with the SEC in the first half of 2007.

EMPLOYEES

As of February 26, 2007, the Company had 492 employees, 377 in MBIA Corp. and 115 in MBIA Asset Management. None of the Company’s domestic employees is covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Certain of the Company’s employees outside the United States are governed by national collective bargaining or similar agreements. The Company considers its employee relations to be satisfactory.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

The Company maintains a website at www.mbia.com. The Company is not including the information on its website as a part of, nor is it incorporating such information by reference into, this Form 10-K. The Company makes available through its website, free of charge, all of its SEC filings, including its annual Form 10-K, any of its quarterly filings on Form 10-Q and any current reports on Form 8-K, as soon as is reasonably practicable after these materials have been filed with the SEC. All such filings were timely posted to the website in 2006.

20

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The executive officers of the Company and their present ages and positions with the Company as of March 1, 2007 are set forth below.

Joseph W. Brown is Chairman of the Company (effective January 7, 1999) and a director of the Company. Prior to joining the Company in January 1999, Mr. Brown was Chairman of the Board of Talegen Holdings, Inc. Mr. Brown served as Chief Executive Officer of the Company from January 1999 to May 2004.

Gary C. Dunton is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a director of the Company. Mr. Dunton has served as President of the Company since 1999 and served as Chief Operating Officer from 2000 to 2004. Mr. Dunton was, prior to joining the Company as an officer, a director of the Company and President of the Family and Business Insurance Group, USF&G Insurance.

Ram D. Wertheim is Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel of the Company. From February of 1998 until January, 2000, he served in various capacities in the Global Structured Finance Division. Mr. Wertheim was, until February of 1998, the General Counsel of CapMAC Holdings Inc.

Kevin D. Silva is Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer of the Company. He has been in charge of the Management Services Division of MBIA Corp. since joining the Company in late 1995.

Ruth M. Whaley is Vice President and Chief Risk Officer of the Company. She was, until February of 1998, the Chief Underwriting Officer of CapMAC Holdings Inc.

Mitchell I. Sonkin is Vice President of the Company and head of the IPM Division. Prior to joining the Company in April 2004, Mr. Sonkin was senior partner and co-chair of the Financial Restructuring Group of the international law firm of King & Spalding.

Christopher E. Weeks is Vice President of the Company and head of the International Division. Mr. Weeks has served in various capacities since joining the Company in 1995, most recently as the business manager in MBIA Corp.’s Global Structured Finance Division responsible for CDO and secondary markets activity.

Clifford D. Corso is Vice President of the Company, the Company’s Chief Investment Officer and the president of MBIA Asset Management. He joined the Company in 1994 and has served as Chief Investment Officer since 2000.

Thomas G. McLoughlin is Vice President of the Company and head of the Global Public Finance Division. Since joining MBIA Corp. in 1994, he has been primarily involved in the public finance area.

21

William C. Fallon is Vice President of the Company and head of the Global Structured Finance Division. From July 2005 to March 1, 2007, Mr. Fallon was Vice President of the Company and head of Corporate and Strategic Planning. Prior to joining the Company in 2005, Mr. Fallon was a partner at McKinsey & Company and co-leader of that firm’s Corporate Finance and Strategy Practice.

C. Edward Chaplin is Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company and Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of MBIA Corp. Prior to becoming an officer of the Company in June 2006, Mr. Chaplin had served as a director of the Company from December 2002 to May 2006 and as Senior Vice President and Treasurer of Prudential Financial Inc. since November 2000, responsible for Prudential’s capital and liquidity management, corporate finance, and banking and cash management. Mr. Chaplin had been with Prudential since 1983.

In June 2006, Nicholas Ferreri resigned as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company and was replaced by C. Edward Chaplin.

On February 16, 2007, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC announcing that Neil G. Budnick, Vice President of the Company and President of MBIA Insurance Corporation and responsible for all new financial guarantee insurance business, and Mark D. Zucker, Managing Director and head of the Global Structured Finance Division, would be leaving the Company. Mr. Budnick’s responsibilities have been assumed by Gary C. Dunton, Chief Executive Officer. William C. Fallon, Managing Director and head of Corporate Strategic Planning, was named head of the Global Structured Finance Division, replacing Mr. Zucker effective March 1, 2007. Messrs. Budnick and Zucker will leave the Company by April 30, 2007. In addition, effective March 1, 2007, Willard Hill and Andrea Randolph are no longer executive officers of the Company given changes to the management structure, although they remain officers of the Company.

On January 11, 2007, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC announcing that Joseph W. Brown, who has served as Executive Chairman of the Company since May 2004 and was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company from 1999 until May 2004, informed the Board of Directors of the Company of his intention to not stand for re-election as a director of MBIA when his current term expires at MBIA’s 2007 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “2007 Annual Meeting”), which is scheduled to be held in May 2007. Under the terms of Mr. Brown’s letter agreement with the Company, which he entered into in May 2004, Mr. Brown had agreed to serve as Executive Chairman until the earlier of the Company’s 2007 Annual Meeting or May 31, 2007. Mr. Brown has been a member of the Board of Directors of the Company since 1990 and was previously a Board member from December 1986 through May 1989.

Subject to the election of Messrs. Gary Dunton and David Clapp as directors at the 2007 Annual Meeting, the Board expects to elect Mr. Dunton as Chairman of the Board of Directors and to designate Mr. Clapp to continue to serve as lead director, in each case until the Company’s 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

In addition to the other information contained in this Form 10-K, the following risk factors should be considered carefully when evaluating the Company and its business. The Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected by any of these risks. Additional risks not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial individually may also adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Reduction in MBIA Corp.’s Financial Strength Ratings Would Materially and Adversely Affect Future Business

MBIA Corp.’s ability to attract new business and to compete with other triple-A rated financial guarantors is largely dependent on the triple-A financial strength ratings assigned to it by the major rating agencies and the financial enhancement rating assigned by S&P. MBIA Corp. intends to comply with the requirements imposed by the rating agencies to maintain such ratings; however, no assurance can be given that these requirements will not change or that, even if MBIA Corp. complies with these requirements, one or more of such rating agencies will not lower or withdraw its financial strength ratings of MBIA Corp. or place MBIA Corp. on “negative outlook,” indicating that a downgrade may be considered in the future. MBIA Corp.’s ability to attract new business and to compete with other triple-A rated financial guarantors, and its results of operations and financial condition, would be materially adversely affected by any reduction, or suggested possibility of reduction, in its ratings. See “Part I, Item 1. Business—Rating Agencies.”

22

Competition May Have an Adverse Effect on MBIA Corp.’s Business

The businesses engaged in by MBIA Corp. are highly competitive. MBIA Corp. faces competition from other financial guarantee insurance companies, other providers of third-party credit enhancement, such as multi-line insurance companies, credit derivative and swap providers and banks, and alternative financing structures that do not employ third-party credit enhancement. Increased competition, either in terms of price, alternative structures, or the emergence of new providers of credit enhancement, could have an adverse effect on MBIA Corp.’s business. See “Part I, Item 1. Business—Competition.”

Market and Other Factors May Cause Investors and/or Issuers to Decrease Demand for MBIA Corp.’s Products

The demand for financial guarantee insurance depends upon many factors, some of which are beyond the control of MBIA Corp. While all the major financial guarantee insurers have triple-A financial strength ratings from the major rating agencies, investors may from time to time distinguish among financial guarantors on the basis of various factors, including size, insured portfolio concentration and financial performance. These distinctions may result in differentials in trading levels for securities insured by particular financial guarantors which, in turn, may provide a competitive advantage to those financial guarantors with better trading characteristics. In addition, various investors may, due to regulatory or internal guidelines, lack additional capacity to purchase securities insured by certain financial guarantors, which may provide a competitive advantage to guarantors with fewer insured obligations outstanding. Distinctions in trading values or investor capacity constraints that do not favor MBIA Corp. would have an adverse effect on MBIA Corp.’s ability to attract new business at appropriate pricing levels.

Changes in Interest Rates Could Adversely Affect Financial Condition and Future Business

Increases in prevailing interest rate levels can adversely affect the value of the Investment Portfolio and, therefore, the Company’s financial condition. In the event that investments must be sold in order to make payments on insured exposures, such investments would likely be sold at discounted prices. Additionally, increasing interest rates could lead to increased credit stress on transactions in MBIA Corp.’s insured portfolio.

Prevailing interest rate levels can affect demand for financial guarantee insurance. Lower interest rates are typically accompanied by narrower spreads between insured and uninsured obligations. The purchase of insurance during periods of relatively narrower interest rate spreads will generally provide lower cost savings to the issuer than during periods of relatively wider spreads. These lower cost savings could be accompanied by a corresponding decrease in demand for financial guarantee insurance. Increased interest rates may decrease attractiveness for issuers to enter into capital markets transactions, resulting in a corresponding decreasing demand for financial guarantee insurance.

Demand for Financial Guarantee Insurance Would Decline if Investors’ Confidence in Financial Guarantor Financial Strength Declined

The perceived financial strength of financial guarantee insurers also affects demand for financial guarantee insurance. Should a major financial guarantee insurer, or the industry generally, have its financial strength rating lowered, or suffer for some other reason deterioration in investors’ confidence, demand for financial guarantee insurance may be reduced significantly.

Regulatory Change Could Adversely Affect MBIA Corp.’s Ability to Enter into Future Business

The financial guarantee insurance industry has historically been and will continue to be subject to the direct and indirect effects of governmental regulation, including insurance laws, securities laws, tax laws and legal precedents affecting asset-backed and municipal obligations, as well as changes in those laws. Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations could expose MBIA Corp. to fines, the loss of its insurance licenses, and the inability to engage in certain business activity. In addition, future legislative, regulatory or judicial changes could adversely affect MBIA Corp.’s ability to pursue its business, materially impacting our financial results. See “Business—Insurance Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 for a description of current insurance regulations affecting MBIA Corp.

On January 29, 2007, the Company announced that it and its principal operating subsidiary MBIA Corp. had concluded civil settlements with the SEC, the NYAG, and the NYSID with respect to transactions entered into by the Company and MBIA Corp. in 1998 following defaults on insured bonds issued by AHERF. The terms of the settlements, under which the Company and MBIA Corp. neither admit nor deny wrongdoing, include retention of an Independent Consultant to review and report to the Company’s Board of Directors, the SEC, the NYAG and the NYSID on the evaluation previously undertaken at the direction of the Audit Committee of MBIA’s Board of Directors by Promontory Financial Group LLC of the Company’s controls, policies and procedures with respect to compliance, internal audit, governance, risk management and records management; the Company’s implementation of Promontory’s recommendations; the Company’s accounting for and disclosure of its investment in Capital Asset Holdings GP, Inc.; and the Company’s accounting for and disclosure of its exposure to the US Airways 1998-1 Repackaging Trust and any other transaction in which the Company paid or acquired all or substantially all of an issue of insured securities other than as a result of a

23

claim under the related policy. To date, the Independent Consultant’s review and report have not been completed. No assurance can be given that the report will not result in additional or different terms from those of the settlements, which terms could have an adverse impact on the Company’s business, prospects or financial condition. See “Legal Proceedings” in Part I, Item 3 for more information on the regulatory investigation.

Revenues Would Be Adversely Impacted Due to Decline in Realization of Installment Premiums

Due to the installment nature of a significant percentage of its premium income, MBIA Corp. has an embedded future revenue stream. The amount of installment premiums actually realized by MBIA Corp. could be reduced in the future due to factors such as early termination of insurance contracts or accelerated prepayments of underlying obligations. Such a reduction would result in lower revenues and would have an adverse effect on the Company’s future financial position.

Adverse Results from Investment Management Services Activities Can Adversely Affect the Company’s Financial Position

The Company’s Investment Management Services businesses have grown as a proportion of its overall business (see “Part I, Item 1. Business- Investment Management Services”). Events that negatively affect the performance of the Investment Management Services businesses could have a negative effect on the overall performance of the Company, separate and distinct from the performance of the Company’s financial guarantee business.

The Company’s Investment Management Services businesses manage several asset-liability programs which enable the Company to earn a spread between the income earned on a portfolio of assets and the interest costs associated with the liabilities incurred to fund the purchase of such assets. These asset-liability programs are managed within a number of risk and liquidity parameters, but there can be no assurance that such parameters are adequate to prevent a decline in the value of the assets or a decline in investment income such that the programs will be unable to service outstanding liabilities. Any resulting loss could have an adverse impact on the Company’s financial position.

Loss Reserves May Not Be Adequate to Cover Potential Losses

The financial guarantees issued by MBIA Corp. insure the financial performance of the obligations guaranteed over an extended period of time, in some cases over 30 years, under policies that MBIA Corp. has, in most circumstances, no right to cancel. As a result of the lack of statistical loss data due to the low level of losses in MBIA Corp.’s financial guarantee business and in the financial guarantee industry in general, particularly in the structured asset-backed area, MBIA Corp. does not use traditional actuarial approaches to determine its loss reserves. Instead, an unallocated loss reserve is established in an amount deemed adequate to cover the expected levels of losses and loss adjustment expense on MBIA Corp.’s overall portfolio. The size of the unallocated loss reserve is determined by a formula, the components of which are reviewed regularly. The establishment of the appropriate level of loss reserves is an inherently uncertain process involving numerous estimates and subjective judgments by management, and therefore, there can be no assurance that actual losses in MBIA Corp.’s insured portfolio will not exceed its loss reserves. Losses from future defaults, depending on their magnitude, could exceed loss reserves and therefore, have an adverse effect on the results of operations and financial condition of MBIA Corp. See “Part I, Item 1. Business—Losses and Reserves; Remediation.”

Unanticipated Catastrophic Events and Operational Risks May Adversely Impact MBIA Corp.’s Insured Portfolio and Future Business

The Company’s insurance operations underwrite and assess credit and other risks using internal models which are based on historical performance and default rates, as well as the Company’s reasonable expectation of future performance. The Company manages its insurance and other exposures in an attempt to minimize the severity and impact of unexpected events. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company’s internal models and portfolio management policies adequately assess and address the risk of unforeseen events, unexpected catastrophic events or the impact of risks with a severity significantly higher than those previously experienced, or that the assumptions which underlie the Company’s internal models and policies are accurate. There can be no assurance that the Company will not incur material losses if such unforeseen, catastrophic or high severity events occur. In addition, even in the absence of unforeseen, catastrophic or high severity events, there can be no assurance that the Company’s internal models, portfolio management policies and other internal systems and processes (or models, tools and services provided by third-parties) will be properly utilized or implemented in the normal operation of the Company’s business. Any failure of such processes, models and systems and/or employee misconduct or fraud or other operational failures could have an adverse impact on the Company’s business and financial condition.

Increased Rating Agency Capital Charges May Adversely Impact Future Business

Individual credits in MBIA Corp.’s insured portfolio (including potential new credits) are assessed a rating agency “capital charge” based on a variety of factors including the nature of the credits, their underlying ratings, their tenor and their expected and actual

24

performance. In the event of an actual or perceived deterioration in creditworthiness, a reduction in the underlying rating or a change in the rating agency capital methodology, the Company may be required to hold more of its capital in reserve against credits in its insured portfolio, regardless of whether losses actually occur, or against potential new business. There can be no assurance that the Company’s capital position will be adequate to meet such increased reserve requirements or that the Company will be able to secure additional capital, especially at a time of actual or perceived deterioration in creditworthiness of new or existing credits. Unless the Company was able to increase its amount of available capital, an increase in capital charges could reduce the amount of capital available to pay claims and support MBIA Corp.’s triple-A ratings and could have an adverse effect on MBIA Corp.’s ability to write new business.

Potential Impact of General Economic and Geopolitical Conditions May Adversely Affect MBIA Corp.’s Business Prospects and Insured Portfolio

Changes in general economic conditions can adversely impact the Company’s business. Recessions, increases in corporate, municipal or consumer default rates, changes in interest rates, changes in law or regulation and other general economic and geopolitical conditions could adversely impact the Company’s prospects for future business, as well as the performance of MBIA Corp.’s insured portfolio and the Investment Portfolio.

General global unrest could disrupt the economy in this country and around the world and could have a direct material adverse impact on certain industries and on general economic activity. The Company has exposure in certain sectors that could suffer increased delinquencies and defaults as a direct result of these types of events. The Company’s exposure to domestic and international airports and to domestic enhanced equipment trust certificate aircraft securitizations have experienced increased stress as a result of global events since 2001, including a downgrading of the ratings and the bankruptcy of some of the underlying issuers, and could experience further stress in the event of general global unrest in the future. Other exposures that depend on revenues from business and personal travel, such as bonds backed by hotel taxes and car rental fleet securitizations, have experienced or may experience increased levels of delinquencies and default. In addition, certain other sectors in which the Company has insured exposure, such as consumer loan securitizations (e.g., home equity, auto loan and credit card transactions), have experienced increased delinquencies and defaults in the underlying pools of loans and could experience further defaults in the event of future global unrest. To the extent that certain corporate sectors may be vulnerable to credit deterioration and increased defaults in the event of future global unrest, collateralized debt obligations backed by pools of corporate debt issuances in those stressed sectors could also be adversely impacted.

The Company’s insurance operations underwrite exposures to the Company’s reasonable expectation of future performance as well as at various stress levels estimating defaults and other conditions at levels higher than are reasonably expected to occur. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will not incur material losses if the economic stress and increased defaults in certain sectors caused by change in economic conditions, default rates, global unrest, terrorism or similar events in the future is or will be more severe than the Company currently foresees and had assumed in underwriting its exposures.

An Inability to Access Capital Could Adversely Affect Liquidity and Impact Ability to Write New Business

The Company’s access to external sources of financing, as well as the cost of such financing, is dependent on various factors, including the long term debt ratings of the Company and the perceptions of the financial strength of MBIA Corp. The Company’s debt ratings are influenced by numerous factors, either in absolute terms or relative to our peer group such as financial leverage, balance sheet strength, capital structure and earnings trends. If the Company cannot obtain adequate capital on favorable terms or at all, the Company’s business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected.

MBIA Corp. has entered into credit facilities with third-party providers in order to supplement its capital position. When evaluating the Company’s overall capital position, the rating agencies evaluate the financial strength of these providers, as well as their perceived willingness to fund these facilities if drawn. In the event that the ratings of these capital providers are reduced or withdrawn, the amount of capital credit the Company receives for these facilities would decline. There can be no assurance that the ratings of such providers will not decline in the future, that replacement providers will be available or, in the absence of a rating decline, that the rating agencies would not decrease the amount of capital credit they assign to the Company for such “soft capital” facilities. The inability to obtain adequate replacement capital on favorable terms or at all could have an adverse impact on the Company’s business and financial condition.

Changes in the Rating Agencies’ Capital Models and Rating Methodology with Respect to Financial Guarantee Insurers May Adversely Affect our Business Results and Progress

Changes in the rating agencies’ capital models and rating methodology could require us to hold more capital against specified credit risks in our insured portfolio. These requirements could place stress on our ratings and force us to raise additional capital, which could in turn result in lower returns on equity.

25

Regulatory Regime and Changes to Accounting Rules May Adversely Impact Financial Results Irrespective of Business Operations

The Company applies fair value accounting for the portion of MBIA Corp.’s business executed in credit derivative form as required by SFAS 133 and changes in fair value are recognized immediately in earnings. Therefore, any increases or decreases in the fair value of these credit derivatives will have an immediate corresponding impact on reported earnings. As changes in fair value can be caused by factors unrelated to the performance of the Company’s business such as general market conditions and perceptions of credit risk, as well as events affecting particular insured credit default swap exposures, the application of fair value accounting may cause the Company’s earnings to be more volatile than would be suggested by the actual performance of the Company’s business operations. In addition, due to the complexity of fair value accounting and the application of SFAS 133, future amendments or interpretations of SFAS 133 may cause the Company to modify its accounting methodology in a manner which may have an adverse impact on the Company’s financial results.

Accounting standard and regulatory changes may require modifications to the Company’s accounting methodology, both prospectively and for prior periods and such changes could have an adverse impact on the Company’s financial results. As discussed in “Part I, Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments” below, the SEC and the FASB are considering the accounting methodology to be applied by financial guarantee industry participants for claims liability recognition, premium recognition, amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs and financial guarantee enhanced securities held for sale in guarantor investment portfolios. When the FASB or the SEC reaches a conclusion on this project, the Company and its financial guarantor peers may be required to change some aspects of their respective loss reserving policies and the potential changes could extend to premium and expense recognition. The FASB is expected to issue proposed guidance in the first quarter of 2007. The Company cannot currently assess how the FASB and SEC staff’s ultimate resolution of this project will impact its loss reserving policy or the effect it might have on recognizing premium revenue and policy acquisition costs. Until final guidance is issued, the Company intends to apply its existing methodology. There can be no certainty, however, that the SEC or the FASB will not require the Company to modify its current methodology, either on a going-forward basis or for prior periods. Any required modification of the Company’s existing methodology, either with respect to these issues or other issues in the future, could have an impact on the Company’s results of operations.

A further description of the Company’s loss reserving policy is included in “Note 2: Significant Accounting Policies” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of MBIA Inc. and Subsidiaries in Part II, Item 8.

Our Holding Company Structure and Certain Regulatory and Other Constraints Could Affect Our Ability to Pay Dividends and Make Other Payments

We are a holding company and have no substantial operations of our own or assets other than our ownership of MBIA Corp., our principal operating subsidiary, MBIA Asset Management, and certain other smaller subsidiaries. As such, we are largely dependent on dividends from MBIA Corp. to pay dividends on our capital stock, to pay principal and interest on our indebtedness, to pay our operating expenses, to purchase our common stock in the open market and to make capital investment in our subsidiaries. The inability of MBIA Corp. to pay dividends in an amount sufficient to enable us to meet our cash requirements at the holding company level could affect our ability to repay our debt or have a material adverse effect on our operations.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

As a result of discussions in January and February 2005 between the SEC staff and several financial guarantee industry participants, including MBIA, the FASB staff considered whether additional guidance with respect to accounting for financial guarantee insurance should be provided. In June 2005, the FASB decided to add to its agenda a project to consider the accounting by insurers for financial guarantee insurance. As part of this project, the FASB is considering several aspects of the insurance accounting model for financial guarantee insurers, including claims liability recognition, premium recognition and the related amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs. When the FASB or the SEC reaches a conclusion on this project, the Company and its financial guarantor peers may be required to change some aspects of their respective loss reserving policies and the potential changes could extend to premium and expense recognition. The FASB is expected to issue proposed guidance in the first quarter of 2007. The Company cannot currently assess how the FASB and SEC staff’s ultimate resolution of this project will impact its loss reserving policy or the effect it might have on recognizing premium revenue and policy acquisition costs. Until final guidance is issued, the Company intends to continue to apply its existing policy with respect to the establishment of both case basis and unallocated loss reserves and the recognition of premium revenue and policy acquisition costs. A further description of the Company’s loss reserving policy is included in “Note 2: Significant Accounting Policies” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of MBIA Inc. and Subsidiaries in Part II, Item 8.

26

Item 2. Properties

MBIA Corp. owns the 265,000 square foot office building on approximately 38 acres of property in Armonk, New York, in which the Company, MBIA Corp. and MBIA Asset Management have their headquarters. MBIA Corp. also has offices with 30,000 square feet of rental space in New York, New York, San Francisco, California, Paris, France, Madrid, Spain, Sydney, Australia, London, England, Milan, Italy, and Tokyo, Japan. MBIA Asset Management has 7,500 square feet of office space in Denver, Colorado. The Company believes that these facilities are adequate and suitable for its current needs.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

In the normal course of operating its businesses, the Company may be involved in various legal proceedings.

In July 2002, MBIA Corp. filed suit against Royal Indemnity Company (“Royal”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, to enforce insurance policies that Royal issued on certain vocational student loan transactions that MBIA Corp. insured. To date, claims in the amount of approximately $355 million have been made under the Royal policies with respect to loans that have defaulted. MBIA Corp. expects that there will be additional claims made under the policies with respect to student loans that may default in the future. Royal had filed an action seeking a declaration that it is not obligated to pay on its policies. In October 2003, the court granted MBIA Corp.’s motion for summary judgment and ordered Royal to pay all claims under its policies. Royal appealed the order, and, in connection with the appeal, pledged $403 million of investment grade collateral to MBIA Corp. to secure the entire amount of the judgment, with interest, and has agreed to post additional security for future claims and interest.

On October 3, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware insofar as it enforced the Royal insurance policies, but remanded the case to the District Court for a determination of whether the Royal policies cover all losses claimed under the policies. In particular, the Court of Appeals directed the District Court to consider whether the Royal policies would cover losses resulting from the misappropriation of student payments rather than from defaults by students. MBIA Corp. believes that the Royal policies would cover losses even if they result from misappropriation of student payments, but in any event it appears that all or substantially all of the claims made under the Royal policies relate to defaults by students rather than misappropriation of funds. Therefore, MBIA Corp. expects Royal to be required to pay all or substantially all of the claims made under its policies and to be reimbursed for any payments MBIA Corp. made under its policies.

Royal filed a petition with the Third Circuit requesting that the case be reheard, which was denied in April 2006. In April 2006, Royal filed a motion with the District Court seeking a release of the collateral it pledged in connection with its appeal of the District Court judgment against it in 2003. MBIA has opposed Royal’s motion to release the collateral and believes that, in light of the Third Circuit affirmance of the parts of the District Court judgment enforcing the Royal policies, and the language in the pledge agreement, the collateral should remain subject to the pledge, although there is no assurance that the District Court will not order a release of the collateral.

If the collateral is released and Royal is unable to make payments on the Royal policies, MBIA Corp. would incur substantial losses under its policies. MBIA Corp. does not believe, however, that any such losses will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition.

In November 2004, the Company received identical document subpoenas from the SEC and the NYAG requesting information with respect to non-traditional or loss mitigation insurance products developed, offered or sold by the Company to third parties from January 1, 1998 to the present. While the subpoenas did not identify any specific transaction, subsequent conversations with the SEC and the NYAG revealed that the investigation included the arrangements entered into by MBIA Corp. in 1998 in connection with the bankruptcy of the Delaware Valley Obligated Group, an entity that is part of AHERF.

On March 9, 2005, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (U.S. Attorney) seeking information related to the agreements it entered into in connection with the AHERF loss. Thereafter, the Company has received additional subpoenas, substantively identical to each other, and additional informal requests, from the SEC and the NYAG for documents and other information.

On August 19, 2005, the Company received a “Wells Notice” from the SEC indicating that the staff of the SEC is considering recommending that the SEC bring a civil injunctive action against the Company alleging violations of federal securities laws “arising from

27

MBIA’s action to retroactively reinsure losses it incurred from the AHERF bonds MBIA had guaranteed, including, but not limited to, its entering into excess of loss agreements and quota share agreements with three separate counterparties.”

On January 29, 2007, the Company announced that it and its principal operating subsidiary MBIA Corp. (together with MBIA, the “Companies”) had concluded civil settlements with the SEC, the NYAG, and the NYSID with respect to transactions entered into by the Companies in 1998 following defaults on insured bonds issued by AHERF.

The terms of the settlements, under which the Companies neither admit nor deny wrongdoing, include:

The foregoing summary description of the terms of the settlements is qualified in its entirety by reference to the documents attached hereto as Exhibits 10.82-10.85.

The Company was named as a defendant in private securities actions consolidated as In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation; (Case No. 05 CV 03514(LLS); S.D.N.Y.) (filed October 3, 2005). Joseph W. Brown, the Company’s Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer, Gary C. Dunton, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Nicholas Ferreri, the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer, Neil G. Budnick, a Vice President of the Company and the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer and Douglas C. Hamilton, the Company’s Controller were also named as defendants in the suit, as were former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer David H. Elliott and former Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Juliette S. Tehrani. The plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiffs purport to be acting as representatives for a class consisting of purchasers of the Company’s stock during the period from August 5, 2003 to March 30, 2005 (the “Class Period”). The allegations contained in the lawsuit included, among other things, violations of the federal securities laws arising out of the Company’s allegedly false and misleading statements about its financial condition and the nature of the arrangements entered into by MBIA Corp. in connection with the AHERF loss, and about the effectiveness of the Company’s internal controls. The plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of these misleading statements or omissions, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

The defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss this lawsuit on various grounds. On February 13, 2007, the Court granted those motions, and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety, on the grounds that these claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Court did not reach the other grounds for dismissal argued by the Company and the other defendants. Though

28

the dismissal remains subject to appeal by the plaintiffs, the Company does not expect the outcome of the private securities litigation to have a material adverse affect on its financial condition, although the outcome is uncertain and no assurance can be given that the Company will not suffer a loss.

Certain officers of the Company and certain members of the Company’s Board of Directors were named as defendants in a shareholder derivative action filed in the Supreme Court of New York, Westchester County on November 9, 2005: Robert Purvis, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant MBIA, Inc. v. Joseph W. Brown, Neil G. Budnick, C. Edward Chaplin, David C. Clapp, Clifford D. Corso, Gary C. Dunton, Claire L. Gaudiani, Daniel P. Kearney, Laurence H. Meyer, Debra J. Perry, John A. Rolls, and Ruth M. Whaley (Case No. 20099-05) (the “Purvis Litigation”). The plaintiff asserted claims for the benefit of the Company to redress injuries suffered by the Company as a result of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the named defendants in connection with the Company’s accounting for certain transactions, including the AHERF loss. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the officer defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of such alleged breach. The lawsuit was dismissed on December 21, 2006, pursuant to court order and an agreement among all parties.

Certain current and former officers of the Company and certain current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors have been named as defendants in a shareholder derivative action filed in the United States District Court, Southern District on April 24, 2006: J. Robert Orton Jr., Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant MBIA, Inc. v. Joseph (Jay) W. Brown, Gary C. Dunton, Neil G. Budnick, Nicholas Ferreri, Douglas C. Hamilton, Juliette S. Tehrani, Richard L. Weill, David H. Elliott, Claire L. Gaudiani, Daniel P. Kearney, David C. Clapp, John A. Rolls, C. Edward Chaplin, Debra J. Perry, Laurence Meyer, Jeffrey W. Yabuki, Pierre-Henri Richard, William H. Gray III, Freda S. Johnson and James A. Lebenthal (Case No. 06 CV 3146) (the “Orton Litigation”). The plaintiff asserts claims for the benefit of the Company to redress injuries suffered by the Company as a result of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, insider trading, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by some or all of the named defendants in connection with alleged false statements in the Company’s financial statements arising from improper accounting for certain transactions, including agreements to reinsure the AHERF loss. The lawsuit seeks relief on behalf of the Company that includes disgorgement of certain compensation granted to such officers, unspecified damages, restitution of profits and compensation, legal costs, an order directing the Company to implement certain governance procedures and other equitable relief.

A Special Litigation Committee of three independent directors of MBIA Inc. has determined after a good faith and thorough investigation that pursuit of the Orton Litigation is not in the best interests of MBIA and its shareholders, and has moved to dismiss the action.

There are no other material lawsuits pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened, to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

None.

29

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

The Company’s common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “MBI.” As of February 15, 2007 there were 883 shareholders of record of the Company’s common stock. The information concerning dividends on the Company’s common stock is under “Item 1. Business—Insurance Regulation” in this annual report.

The high and low stock prices and dividends with respect to the Company’s common stock for the last two years are set forth below:

The Company expects to continue its policy of paying regular dividends, although there is no assurance as to future dividends because they depend on future earnings, capital requirements, and financial condition.

In July 2004, the Company received authorization from its Board of Directors to repurchase 1 million of common stock under a share repurchase program. On August 5, 2004, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of an additional 14 million shares of common stock in connection with this program. As of December 31, 2006, the Company had repurchased a total of 10 million shares under the program.

In February 2007, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of common stock up to $1 billion under a new share repurchase program, which superseded the previously authorized program. The Company’s ability to repurchase common stock is largely dependent on the amount of dividends paid by MBIA Corp. to MBIA Inc. Repurchases of common stock will be made from time to time in the open market or in private transactions as permitted by securities laws and other legal requirements.

The table below sets forth repurchases made by the Company in each month during the fourth quarter of 2006, all of which were purchased by the Company for settling awards under the Company’s long-term incentive plans.

30

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

Selected Financial and Statistical Data

MBIA Inc. and Subsidiaries

31

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

FORWARD-LOOKING AND CAUTIONARY STATEMENTS

This annual report of MBIA Inc. (“MBIA” or the “Company”) includes statements that are not historical or current facts and are “forward-looking statements” made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The words “believe,” “anticipate,” “project,” “plan,” “expect,” “intend,” “will likely result,” “looking forward” or “will continue,” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from historical earnings and those presently anticipated or projected. MBIA cautions readers not to place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements, which speak only to their respective dates. The following are some of the factors that could affect financial performance or could cause actual results to differ materially from estimates contained in or underlying the Company’s forward-looking statements:

The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly correct or update any forward-looking statement if it later becomes aware that such results are not likely to be achieved.

OVERVIEW

MBIA is a leading provider of financial guarantee products and specialized financial services. MBIA provides innovative and cost-effective products and services that meet the credit enhancement, financial and investment needs of its public- and private-sector clients worldwide. MBIA manages its activities primarily through two principal business operations: insurance and investment management services. The Company’s corporate operations include revenues and expenses that arise from general corporate activities.

MBIA’s insurance operations are principally conducted through MBIA Insurance Corporation and its subsidiaries (“MBIA Corp.”). MBIA Insurance Corporation has triple-A financial strength ratings from Standard and Poor’s Corporation (“S&P”), Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”), Fitch, Inc. and Rating and Investment Information, Inc. Additionally, MBIA Insurance Corporation’s insurance subsidiaries have triple-A financial strength ratings from at least S&P and Moody’s. MBIA Corp. issues financial guarantees for municipal bonds, asset-backed and mortgage-backed securities, investor-owned utility bonds, bonds backed by publicly or privately funded public-purpose projects, bonds issued by sovereign and sub-sovereign entities, obligations collateralized by diverse pools of corporate loans and pools of corporate and asset-backed bonds, both in the new issue and secondary markets. Additionally, MBIA Corp. insures credit default swaps on pools of collateral, which it considers part of its core financial guarantee business. The financial guarantees issued by MBIA Corp. provide an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee of the payment of the principal of, and interest or other amounts owing on, insured obligations when due or, in the event that MBIA Corp. has the right, at its discretion, to accelerate insured obligations upon default or otherwise, upon such acceleration by MBIA Corp.

MBIA’s investment management services operations provide an array of products and services to the public, not-for-profit and corporate sectors. Such products and services are provided primarily through wholly owned subsidiaries of MBIA Asset Management, LLC (“MBIA Asset Management”) and include cash management, discretionary asset management and fund administration services and investment agreement, medium-term note and commercial paper programs related to funding assets for third-party clients and for investment purposes.

In December 2006, MBIA completed the sale of Capital Asset Holdings GP, Inc. and certain affiliated entities (“Capital Asset”), a servicer of delinquent tax liens, to a third party company that is engaged in tax lien servicing and collection and that had been overseeing the servicing operations of Capital Asset since July 2006. The sale of Capital Asset also included three variable interest entities (“VIEs”) established in connection with MBIA-insured securitizations of Capital Asset tax liens, which were consolidated within the Company’s insurance operations in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. (“FIN”) 46(R), “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (Revised).”

32

In the third quarter of 2006, MBIA finalized a plan to sell MBIA MuniServices Company and certain of its wholly owned subsidiaries (“MuniServices”) to an investor group led by the management of MuniServices. MuniServices provides revenue enhancement services and products to public-sector clients nationwide consisting of discovery, audit, collections/recovery and information services. The Company completed the sale of MuniServices in December 2006.

MBIA’s municipal services operations consisted of the activities of MuniServices and Capital Asset. As a result of the sale of MuniServices and Capital Asset, the Company no longer reports municipal services operations and the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of these entities have been reported within discontinued operations for all years presented in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. (“SFAS”) 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-lived Assets.” See “Note 15: Discontinued Operations” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for information relating to the Company’s discontinued operations.

The Company’s results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 are discussed in the “Results of Operations” section included herein.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES

The Company prepares its financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), which requires the use of estimates and assumptions. The following accounting estimates are viewed by management to be critical because they require significant judgment on the part of management. Financial results could be materially different if alternate methodologies were used or if management modified its assumptions.

LOSSES AND LOSS ADJUSTMENT EXPENSES The Company’s financial guarantee insurance provides an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee of the payment of the principal of, and interest or other amounts owing on, insured obligations when due or, in the event that the Company has the right, at its discretion, to accelerate insured obligations upon default or otherwise, upon such acceleration by the Company. Loss and loss adjustment expense (“LAE”) reserves are established by the Company’s Loss Reserve Committee, which consists of members of senior management, and require the use of judgment and estimates with respect to the occurrence, timing and amount of a loss on an insured obligation.

The Company establishes two types of loss and LAE reserves for non-derivative financial guarantees: an unallocated loss reserve and case basis reserves. The unallocated loss reserve is established with respect to the Company’s entire non-derivative insured portfolio. The Company’s unallocated loss reserve represents the Company’s estimate of losses that have or are probable to occur as a result of credit deterioration in the Company’s insured portfolio but which have not yet been specifically identified and applied to specific insured obligations.

Each quarter the Company calculates its provision for the unallocated loss reserve as a fixed percent of scheduled net earned premium. Annually, the Loss Reserve Committee evaluates the appropriateness of this fixed percent loss factor. In performing this evaluation, the Loss Reserve Committee considers the composition of the Company’s insured portfolio by municipal sector, structured asset class, remaining maturity and credit quality, along with the latest industry data, including historical default and recovery experience for the relevant sectors of the fixed-income market in order to determine if a trend is developing that indicates the loss factor should be increased or decreased. In addition, the Company considers its own historical loss activity and how those losses develop over time. The Loss Reserve Committee reviews the results of its annual evaluation over a period of several years to determine whether any long-term trends are developing. Therefore, case basis reserves established in any year may be above or below the loss factor without requiring an increase or decrease to the loss factor. The Company’s additions to specific case basis reserves in the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 exceeded the 12% loss factor currently used by the Company. However, additions to specific case basis reserves in the year ended December 31, 2006 were less than the 12% loss factor. The Loss Reserve Committee is continuing to monitor any trends and evaluate whether an adjustment to the Company’s current loss factor is appropriate. However, if a catastrophic or very unusual loss occurred, the Loss Reserve Committee would consider taking an immediate charge through “Losses and loss adjustment expenses” and possibly also increasing the loss factor in order to maintain an adequate level of loss reserves. Since 2002, the Company has calculated its provision for the unallocated loss reserve as 12% of scheduled net earned premium.

Significant changes to any variables on which the 12% loss factor is based, over an extended period of time, would likely result in an increase or decrease in the Company’s loss factor with a corresponding increase or decrease in the amount of the Company’s loss and loss adjustment expense provision. For example, as external and internal statistical data are applied to the various sectors of the Company’s insured portfolio, a shift in business written toward sectors with high default rates would likely increase the loss factor, while a shift toward sectors with low default rates would likely decrease the loss factor. Additionally, increases in statistical default rates relative to the Company’s insured portfolio and in the Company’s actual loss experience or decreases in statistical recovery rates

and in the Company’s actual recovery experience would likely increase the Company’s loss factor. Conversely, decreases in statistical

33

default rates relative to the Company’s insured portfolio and in the Company’s actual loss experience or increases in statistical recovery rates and in the Company’s actual recovery experience would likely decrease the Company’s loss factor. During the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, the Company calculated its provision for the unallocated loss reserve of $81 million, $84 million and $85 million, respectively. This provision represents loss and loss adjustment expenses as reported on the Company’s income statement.

In the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, the Company’s actual loss experience, one of the variables on which the loss factor is based, increased significantly above historical levels as case basis incurred activity exceeded the 12% loss factor used by the Company. Given the level of specific case basis losses recorded in 2005 and 2004, if none of the other variables used in deriving the loss factor had changed during this period, the Company’s loss factor would approximate 14% on a cumulative basis through December 31, 2006. Another variable that changed over the last several years, however, and that affects the determination of the loss factor is the mix of business among different sectors. During this period, the Company has ceased writing business in certain sectors in which loss experience has been high relative to its total portfolio, such as tax liens, lower rated high-yield collateralized bond obligations, manufactured housing and certain direct corporate obligations, which offset the impact that the higher case basis incurred activity would have on the loss factor. Excluding actual loss experience incurred in the sectors listed above, the Company’s cumulative loss factor through December 31, 2006 would approximate 9%. Also mitigating the impact of higher case basis incurred activity is the improvement in the overall credit quality of the insured portfolio, with a greater percentage of the insured portfolio rated A or above over the past few years, as well as a decline in the number of issues on the Company’s caution lists.

Considering all of the assumptions used in the assessment of the adequacy of the loss factor, including the higher case basis incurred activity in 2005 and 2004 and the offsetting effect of observed changes in the variables described above, the Company believes that its current loss factor of 12% continues to represent a reasonable estimate of losses that have or are probable to occur as a result of credit deterioration in the Company’s insured portfolio but which have not yet been specifically identified and applied to specific insured obligations. In addition, the Company believes that the amount of unallocated loss reserves recorded on its balance sheet at December 31, 2006 are adequate to cover specific losses that may develop from its existing insured portfolio. MBIA continually monitors its insured portfolio and actual loss experience in order to identify trends that would indicate a reasonably likely significant change to one or more of the variables on which the loss factor is based. If MBIA determines that any changes to one or more of these variables is likely to have an impact on the level of probable losses in its insured portfolio, the Company will increase or decrease its loss factor accordingly, which will result in an increase or decrease in its loss and loss adjustment expenses.

The Company establishes specific reserves in an amount equal to the Company’s estimate of identified or case basis reserves with respect to specific policies. A number of variables are taken into account in establishing specific case basis reserves for individual policies that depend primarily on the nature of the underlying insured obligation. These variables include the nature and creditworthiness of the underlying issuer of the insured obligation, whether the obligation is secured or unsecured and the expected recovery rates on the insured obligation, the projected cash flow or market value of any assets that support the insured obligation and the historical and projected loss rates on such assets. Factors that may affect the actual ultimate realized losses for any policy include the state of the economy, changes in interest rates, rates of inflation and the salvage values of specific collateral. The Company does not believe that changes to these factors would materially change the amount of the Company’s case basis loss reserves, with the exception of significant changes in salvage values of specific collateral. Changes in salvage values of specific collateral may occur over time and would directly affect the amount of case basis loss reserves established for individual insured obligations.

The Company’s total loss reserves of $537 million represent a small fraction of its outstanding net debt service insured of $940 billion. However, we believe that these reserves are adequate to cover ultimate net losses. Given that the reserves are based on estimates, there can be no assurance that the ultimate liability will not exceed such estimates resulting in the Company recognizing additional loss and loss adjustment expense in earnings. While the underlying principles applied to loss reserving are consistent across the financial guarantee industry, differences exist with regard to the methodology and measurement of loss reserves. Alternative methods may produce different estimates than the method used by the Company. Additionally, the accounting for non-derivative financial guarantee loss reserves is possibly subject to change. See “Note 2: Significant Accounting Policies” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a description of the Company’s loss and loss adjustment expense accounting policy.

PREMIUM REVENUE RECOGNITION Upfront premiums are earned in proportion to the expiration of the related principal balance of an insured obligation. Therefore, for transactions in which the premium is received upfront, premium earnings are greater in the earlier periods when there is a higher amount of principal outstanding. The upfront premiums are apportioned to individual sinking fund payments of a bond issue according to an amortization schedule. After the premiums are allocated to each scheduled sinking fund payment, they are earned on a straight-line basis over the period of that sinking fund payment. Accordingly, deferred

34

premium revenue represents the portion of premiums written that is applicable to the unexpired risk of insured bonds and notes. When an MBIA-insured obligation is retired early, is called by the issuer, or is in substance paid in advance through a refunding accomplished by placing U.S. Government securities in escrow, the remaining deferred premium revenue is earned at that time since there is no longer risk to the Company. Installment premiums are earned on a straight-line basis over each installment period, generally one year or less. As the outstanding principal of an installment-based policy is paid down by the issuer of an MBIA-insured obligation, less premium is collected and recognized by the Company. Both upfront and installment premium recognition methods recognize premiums over the term of an insurance policy in proportion to the remaining outstanding principal balance of the insured obligation.

The effect of the Company’s upfront premium earnings policy is to recognize greater levels of upfront premiums in the earlier years of each policy insured, thus matching revenue recognition with exposure to the underlying risk. Recognizing premium revenue on a straight-line basis over the life of each policy without allocating premiums to the sinking fund payments would materially affect the Company’s financial results. Premium earnings would be more evenly recorded as revenue throughout the period of risk than under the current method, but the Company does not believe that the straight-line method would appropriately match premiums earned to the Company’s exposure to the underlying risk. Therefore, the Company believes its upfront premium earnings methodology is the most appropriate method to recognize its upfront premiums as revenue. The premium earnings methodology used by the Company is similar to that used throughout the financial guarantee industry. However, premium revenue recognition is subject to change as a result of the FASB project described in the “Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses” section included herein.

VALUATION OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS The fair market values of financial instruments held or issued by the Company are determined through the use of available market data and widely accepted valuation methods. Market data is retrieved from a variety of third-party data sources for input into the Company’s valuation systems. Valuation systems are determined based on the characteristics of transactions and the availability of market data. The fair values of financial assets and liabilities are primarily calculated from quoted dealer market prices. However, dealer market prices may not be available for certain types of contracts that are infrequently purchased and sold. For these contracts, the Company may use alternate methods for determining fair values, such as dealer market quotes for similar contracts or cash flow modeling. Alternate valuation methods generally require management to exercise considerable judgment in the use of estimates and assumptions, and changes to certain factors may produce materially different values. In addition, actual market exchanges may occur at materially different amounts.

The Company’s financial instruments categorized as assets primarily comprise investments in debt and equity instruments. The majority of the Company’s debt and equity investments are accounted for in accordance with SFAS 115, “Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities.” SFAS 115 requires that all debt instruments and certain equity instruments be classified in the Company’s balance sheet according to their purpose and, depending on that classification, be carried at either amortized cost or fair market value. Quoted market prices are generally available for these investments. However, if a quoted market price is not available, a price is derived from internally developed models which use available market data. Equity investments outside the scope of SFAS 115 are accounted for under cost or equity method accounting principles. Other financial assets that require fair value reporting or disclosures within the Company’s notes to the financial statements are valued based on underlying collateral or the Company’s estimate of discounted cash flows.

MBIA regularly monitors its investments in which fair value is less than amortized cost in order to assess whether such a decline in value is other than temporary and, therefore, should be reflected as a realized loss in net income. Such an assessment requires the Company to determine the cause of the decline and whether the Company possesses both the ability and intent to hold the investment to maturity or until the value recovers to an amount at least equal to amortized cost. Additionally, this assessment requires management to exercise judgment as to whether an investment is impaired based on market conditions and trends and the availability of relevant data. See “Note 12: Investment Income and Gains and Losses” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further information regarding other than temporary losses recorded in net income.

The Company’s financial instruments categorized as liabilities primarily consist of obligations related to its asset/liability products, conduit medium-term note and conduit commercial paper programs, and debt issued for general corporate purposes. These liabilities are typically recorded at their face value adjusted for premiums or discounts. The fair values of such instruments are generally not reported within the Company’s financial statements, but rather in the accompanying notes. However, the carrying values of financial liabilities which qualify as part of fair value hedging arrangements under SFAS 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” as amended, are adjusted in the Company’s balance sheet to reflect those risks being hedged. MBIA has instituted cash flow modeling techniques to estimate the value of its liabilities that qualify as hedged obligations under SFAS 133

35

based on current market data. Other financial liabilities that require fair value reporting or disclosures within the Company’s notes to its financial statements are valued based on underlying collateral, the Company’s estimate of discounted cash flows or quoted market values for similar transactions.

The Company’s exposure to derivative instruments is created through contracts into which it directly enters and through third-party contracts it insures. The majority of MBIA’s exposure to derivative instruments, measured by notional values, is related to certain synthetic collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) that it insures. These contracts meet the definition of a derivative under SFAS 133 but effectively represent an alternate form of financial guarantee execution. The fair values of the Company’s derivative instruments are estimated using various valuation models that conform to industry standards. The Company utilizes both vendor-developed and proprietary models, based on the complexity of transactions. Dealer market quotes are typically obtained for regularly traded contracts and provide the best estimate of fair value for those contracts. However, when reliable dealer market quotes are not available, the Company uses a variety of market data relative to the type and structure of derivative contracts entered into by the Company. Several of the more significant types of market and contract data that influence the Company’s valuation models include interest rates, credit spreads, credit quality ratings and correlation assumptions. The data is obtained from third-party sources and is reviewed for reasonableness and applicability to the Company’s derivative portfolio. The fair value of the Company’s derivative portfolio may be materially affected by changes in existing market data, the availability of new or improved market data, changes in specific contract data or enhancements to the Company’s valuation models resulting from new market practices.

MBIA expects to hold all derivative instruments to their contractual maturity. Upon maturity of a contract, any gain or loss recorded in the Company’s financial statements will be reduced to zero. However, in the unlikely event circumstances require the termination and settlement of a contract prior to maturity, any resulting gain or loss upon settlement will be recorded in the Company’s financial statements.

The Company maintains an ongoing review of its valuation models and has formal procedures for the approval and control of data inputs. See “Note 26: Fair Value of Financial Instruments” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the various types of instruments entered into by MBIA and a comparison of carrying values as reported in the Company’s balance sheet to estimated fair values.

GOODWILL Under SFAS 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite lives are tested for impairment at least annually. This test includes a two-step process aimed at determining the amount, if any, by which the carrying value of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value and should be charged as an expense through net income.

In performing its impairment test, the Company determined that the best measure of the fair value of the insurance reporting segment is its book value adjusted for the after-tax effects of net deferred premium revenue less deferred acquisition costs, the present value of installment premiums and a provision for losses to arrive at an adjusted book value. Adjusted book value is a common measure used by security analysts to assess the value of financial guarantee companies.

In performing the impairment test for the investment management services operations, the fair value of a reporting segment is determined using a multiple of earnings before income tax, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”), as this is a common measure of fair value in the investment management industry. The multiple was determined based on a review of current industry valuation practices.

The Company performed its annual impairment testing of goodwill as of January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2007. On both dates, the fair values of the reporting segments exceeded their carrying values indicating that goodwill was not impaired. Alternate valuation methods would have likely produced different fair values. However, the Company believes that the valuation methods used provided the best estimates of fair value.

36

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Summary of Consolidated Results

The following table presents highlights of the Company’s consolidated financial results for 2006, 2005 and 2004. Items listed under “Other per share information (effect on net income)” are items that we commonly identify for the readers of our financial statements because they are a by-product of the Company’s operations or due to general market conditions beyond the control of the Company.

Consolidated revenues from continuing operations increased 18% to $2.7 billion in 2006 from $2.3 billion in 2005. Growth in insurance revenues resulted from an increase in net investment income and net realized gains from investment securities. An increase in investment management services’ interest income resulting from growth in asset/liability products was partially offset by a decrease in investment management services’ net gains on derivative instruments and foreign exchange. Consolidated expenses from continuing operations increased 23% to $1.6 billion in 2006 from $1.3 billion in 2005. This increase was principally due to an increase in investment management services and insurance interest expense, which was commensurate with the increase in interest income. Offsetting the increase in consolidated expenses was a reduction in corporate expenses resulting from $75 million of estimated penalties and disgorgement recorded in the third quarter of 2005 in connection with the settlement of regulatory investigations of the Company. Net income for 2006 of $819 million was up 15% from $711 million for 2005. Net income per diluted share was $5.99 for 2006 compared with $5.18 per diluted share for 2005, a 16% increase. The slightly larger percent increase in net income per diluted share compared with net income resulted from an approximately 526,000 decrease in the average number of diluted shares outstanding as a result of share repurchases the Company made in the first half of 2005.

Consolidated revenues from continuing operations increased 12% to $2.3 billion in 2005 from $2.1 billion in 2004. The growth in consolidated revenues was primarily due to a substantial increase in investment management services’ interest income resulting from growth in asset/liability products. Offsetting the increase in investment management services’ revenues was a decrease in insurance revenues resulting from a decline in net realized gains on investment securities. Consolidated expenses from continuing operations increased 45% to $1.3 billion in 2005 from $0.9 billion in 2004. This increase was principally due to an increase in investment management services’ interest expense, which was commensurate with the increase in interest income, and estimated penalties and disgorgement related to the settlement of regulatory investigations of the Company. Net income for 2005 of $711 million was down 16% from $843 million for 2004. Net income per diluted share was $5.18 for 2005 compared with $5.82 for 2004, an 11% decrease.

37

The Company’s book value at December 31, 2006 was $53.43 per share, up 9% from $49.17 per share at December 31, 2005. The increase was principally driven by net income from operations. Book value per share has shown steady growth over the past three years with a three-year compound average growth rate of 8%.

Insurance Operations

The Company’s insurance operations principally comprise the activities of MBIA Corp. MBIA Corp. issues financial guarantees for municipal bonds, asset-backed and mortgage-backed securities, investor-owned utility bonds, bonds backed by publicly or privately funded public purpose projects, bonds issued by sovereign and sub-sovereign entities, obligations collateralized by diverse pools of corporate loans and pools of corporate and asset-backed bonds, both in the new issue and secondary markets. Additionally, MBIA Corp. insures credit default swaps on pools of collateral, which it considers part of its core financial guarantee business.

The municipal obligations that MBIA Corp. insures include tax-exempt and taxable indebtedness of states, counties, cities, utility districts and other political subdivisions, as well as airports, higher education and healthcare facilities and similar authorities and obligations issued by private entities that finance projects which serve a substantial public purpose. The asset-backed and structured finance obligations insured by MBIA Corp. typically consist of securities that are payable from or which are tied to the performance of a specified pool of assets that have an expected cash flow. Securities of this type include residential and commercial mortgages, a variety of consumer loans, corporate loans and bonds, trade and export receivables, aircraft, equipment and real property leases, and infrastructure projects.

In certain cases, the Company may be required to consolidate entities established as part of securitizations when it insures the assets or liabilities of those entities. These entities typically meet the definition of a VIE under FIN 46(R). We do not believe there is any difference in the risks and profitability of financial guarantees provided to VIEs compared with other financial guarantees written by the Company. Additional information relating to VIEs is contained in the “Variable Interest Entities” section included herein.

In 2006, revenues from the Company’s insurance operations increased 7% to $1.47 billion compared with $1.38 billion in 2005. The increase in insurance operations’ revenues was primarily the result of an increase in net investment income and, to a lesser extent, net realized gains from investment securities, net gains on derivative instruments and foreign exchange and increased fees and reimbursements income. Insurance expenses, which consist of loss and LAE, the amortization of deferred acquisition costs, operating expenses and interest expense, increased 19% to $379 million in 2006 compared with $318 million in 2005. The increase in insurance expenses was the result of an increase in interest expense, commensurate with the increase in net investment income, and an increase in operating expenses resulting from increased compensation costs. Gross operating expenses (expenses before ceding commission income and the deferral or amortization of acquisition costs) increased 2% in 2006 compared with 2005.

In 2005, revenues from the Company’s insurance operations decreased 9% to $1.38 billion compared with $1.51 billion in 2004. The decline in insurance operations’ revenues was primarily the result of a decrease in net gains from investment securities and, to a lesser extent, a decrease in fees and reimbursements income and net gains on derivative instruments. Net investment income increased 3%, partially offsetting the overall decline in revenues. Insurance expenses increased 6% to $318 million in 2005 compared with $301 million in 2004. Loss and LAE and the amortization of deferred acquisition costs remained relatively flat. Operating expenses increased largely due to loss prevention costs, costs associated with the Company’s Money Market Committed Preferred Custodial Trust securities (“CPCT securities”), consulting services and a decrease in the rate at which compensation and other costs are deferred as policy acquisition costs. Gross operating expenses increased 5% in 2005 compared with 2004. Interest expense declined in 2005 compared with 2004 due to lower VIE interest expense.

The Company’s gross premiums written (“GPW”), net premiums written (“NPW”) and net premiums earned for the last three years are presented in the following table:

38

GPW reflects premiums received and accrued for in the period and does not include the present value of future cash receipts expected from installment premium policies originated during the period. GPW was $896 million in 2006, down 9% from 2005 due to a 23% decline in business written in the U.S., partially offset by a 27% increase in non-U.S. business written.

NPW, which represents gross premiums written net of premiums ceded to reinsurers, decreased 7% to $798 million in 2006 from $858 million in 2005. The decline in 2006 was a result of the decline in GPW, partially offset by a reduction in premiums ceded to reinsurers. Premiums ceded to reinsurers from all insurance operations as a percentage of GPW were 11% and 13% for 2006 and 2005, respectively. Reinsurance enables the Company to cede exposure and comply with its single risk and other credit guidelines, although the Company continues to be primarily liable on the insurance policies it underwrites.

Net premiums earned include scheduled premium earnings as well as premium earnings from refunded issues. Net premiums earned in 2006 of $836 million decreased 1% over 2005 due to a 4% decrease in scheduled premiums earned, offset by a 15% increase in refunded premiums earned. The decrease in scheduled premiums earned resulted from declining business production since 2003 and the effects of heavy refunding activity over the same period.

In 2005, GPW decreased 12% compared with 2004, reflecting declines in both U.S and non-U.S. business. NPW decreased 10% compared with 2004, resulting from the decline in GPW, slightly offset by a reduction in premiums ceded to reinsurers. Premiums ceded to reinsurers from all insurance operations for 2005 declined to 13% of GPW from 14% for 2004. Net premiums earned declined 1% in 2005 compared with 2004 due to a 2% decrease in refunded premiums earned and a 1% decrease in scheduled premiums earned. The decrease in refunded premiums earned resulted from a modest slow down in refinancing activity in the municipal market from historically high levels.

MBIA evaluates the premium rates it charges for insurance guarantees through the use of internal and external rating agency quantitative models. These models assess the Company’s premium rates and return on capital results on a risk adjusted basis. In addition, market research data is used to evaluate pricing levels across the financial guarantee industry for comparable risks, when available. Although pricing has been acceptable in the last three years, the Company, along with the industry, experienced significant price increases over the period from 1998 through 2003. The Company’s pricing levels indicate continued acceptable trends in overall portfolio profitability under all models, and the Company believes the pricing charged for its insurance products produces results that meet its long-term return on capital targets.

CREDIT QUALITY Financial guarantee companies use a variety of approaches to assess the underlying credit risk profile of their insured portfolios. MBIA uses both an internally developed credit rating system as well as third-party rating sources in the analysis of credit quality measures of its insured portfolio. In evaluating credit risk, the Company obtains, when available, the underlying rating of the insured obligation before the benefit of its insurance policy from nationally recognized rating agencies (Moody’s, S&P and Fitch, Inc.). All references to insured credit quality distributions contained herein reflect the underlying rating levels from these third-party sources. Other companies within the financial guarantee industry may report credit quality information based upon internal ratings that would not be comparable to MBIA’s presentation.

39

During 2006, total net par insured rated A or above, before giving effect to MBIA’s guarantee, was 77% compared with 81% during 2005 and 76% during 2004. These percentages reflect a change in the mix of business written during each year. At December 31, 2006 and 2005, 81% of the Company’s outstanding book of business was rated A or above before giving effect to MBIA’s guarantee.