Awesome. So, good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure to have Executive Vice President and CFO, François Morin, on the line. I just wanna notify everybody, following this discussion, we're gonna host an open group meeting where you can join to ask questions. You can also shoot questions to me now via chat, and to access the meeting afterward, just click the link within our MeetMax conference website. And then once you join, please click Panelist, if you'd like to be able to speak and ask a question. So, I just wanna make sure everybody was clear on that. François, it's great to have you here, and I think I'll just kick off with a question around share repurchases. Management said that buybacks remain a big topic of debate internally. Maybe you could tell us a little bit about that debate, and if Arch did not repurchase shares in 2023, why does it sound like the second half of 2024 might be a good time to do that? Yeah, sure. And again, thanks for having me here. Happy to participate in the conference. Yeah, I mean, share buybacks to us is, it's just, again, one of the tools that we have available in terms of of capital management and, and being, you know, good stewards of capital, as, as we think we've demonstrated over the years. I think it's, something that we've used in the past. You're correct, in 2023, we were, stayed on the sidelines. It's been a terrific market for us. We had the opportunity to... we were able to deploy the capital we had in the business, and that, that certainly comes first. So I think we, you know, we, we put this capital to work, both in insurance and reinsurance. But, you know, we're certainly aware that, you know, the market is still very, very healthy, but, you know, the opportunities for organic growth may not be as, you know, plentiful going forward. And we are also, you know, we've been able to accumulate, you know, the capital and grow the capital base. So, when we think about, you know, do we have excess capital, and if so, what do we do with it? Again, share buybacks are part of that discussion, and, you know, maybe dividends or regular or special, those are all the, you know, traditional tools that we have access to. But, you know, for the time being, we're still, you know, enjoying this very good market, and, you know, we're putting that capital to work. Will things change? Could they change? You know, they could, certainly later this year, maybe next year. But again, I'd say nothing new in terms of how we think about the, the options. And it's really, very much a function of kind of what kind of market we have in front of us and what the opportunities are. Got it. And just quick to clarify the comment about dividend, that would mean a one-time dividend, not a steady dividend, correct? Everything's on the table. So we have those discussions with the board. Okay. There's, you know, we discuss all the pros and cons of all kind of forms of returning capital to shareholders. And, you know, again, we'll definitely try to make the best decision for the shareholders when the time comes. Interesting, 'cause that one seemed like it was always off the table, but that's, it's interesting. So, François, how come the decision to buy Allianz's U.S. middle market and entertainment business, and what other areas might you still be looking at for M&A, given your capital position? Yeah, for sure. Well, you know us, right? We've been historically, primarily, on the insurance side, you know, focused on specialty lines with some large commercial products or, you know, lines of business. And, you know, you know, as we look at our footprint and our operations, middle market business was an area that we, you know, we're just dabbling in, really didn't have a meaningful presence. We had some offerings in some lines of business, but it wasn't really a big part of what Arch Insurance does. So, you know, middle market had always been, or, you know, for the last little while at least, had been identified as an area where, you know, that would be a nice addition to the Arch, you know, product offering and, and distribution network. So, you know, we were exploring ways to get into that space, whether you know, and then you get into the discussion between buy and build and, you know, what makes sense. And, you know, there's a reason why some of the larger, market players, you know, established a presence, and it, you know, takes time to build. It can be expensive. There's no guarantee that it's gonna be, you know, a success. So we, you know, we thought about it, but when this asset became available, you know, we thought that would just accelerate our entry into that space. Right, we're talking about $1.5 billion or so, just maybe a bit less, or of premium in, in that space for us. We're talking, you know, $100 billion plus market space, so, it's, it's a large market that, you know, we would, you know, you know, have a very tiny market share in at this point. And then it's on us, once we close, to, to, you know, shape the portfolio in a way that we think we can, you know, be successful and look for opportunities to make it, you know, even better and maybe slightly bigger as well. So a lot of work to be done, but it was certainly part of our strategic thinking for, you know, in this phase of our evolution. And, you know, we're happy we are kinda getting close to owning the asset. Yeah. And it seemed, maybe just shifting gears a little bit, it seemed like investors were very jittery last quarter about casualty reserves across the whole, the whole sector. And Arch reported a favorable $126 million reserve development that included $7 million in insurance, $21 million in reinsurance, and $107 million in mortgage, with no material adverse development in the long-term casualty lines, where everybody seems to be quite nervous. So François, maybe you could share your thoughts on the sufficiency of reserves, at Arch, for the 2016 through 2019 accident years, and then separately, how about the more recent years, 2020 to present, industry-wide versus Arch? Yeah, well, on the, you know, the part, you know, the earlier years, right, the 15-19 kinda years, you know, how we play, you know, how we do business, right, is very much around cycle management. That's one of our key principles, where we need to be very thoughtful and careful when, you know, we see market conditions that, you know, are most likely not gonna be in our favor. So the 15-19 years on the casualty side, in particular, were, we thought could be problematic. We thought could, you know, there's definitely pressure on the rates and, you know, the loss costs, you know, the assumptions we make around loss costs are always, you know, an estimate. But, you know, we, we've been all through our history, I think, very careful not to to be overly optimistic on those. We, we take a long-term view of loss cost trends. And, you know, it certainly has. You know, trends have picked up a little bit in the last couple of years, but, you know, when, when we were running the business, for us in those years, we were, we were very much playing a lot of defense. We were pulling back in a lot of areas. So, you know, we were effectively underweight, and kinda we, we think avoided most of the, the trouble areas that were out there. So when we talk about reserve adequacy for those years, you know, it, it, you know, and, and we say it all the time, we're not perfect. I mean, we do see the same kinda industry issues that, you know, most people or a lot of people talk about. But for us, I think it's been very much a being underweight has made it less of an issue. And you know, we've been prudent along the way in terms of how we think. You know, we're booking, we think at that time, kinda more conservative loss ratio picks. And we've taken a long-term view, wanted to see how those were gonna develop, and so far it's been... You know, it hasn't been all good. We've had some adverse in some pockets, but in totality, as we look at the overall book at Arch, both in insurance and reinsurance, it hasn't been a major issue for us. And then when we switch over to the more recent years, where, yeah, the market was certainly better, so we were, we grew a little bit more in those years and in the casualty lines, and that, as we all know, it's a pretty wide range of exposures, from D&O to umbrella to all types of general liability business. So we thought it was a good time to grow that our presence, because conditions were much better. But, you know, in terms of reserve adequacy, then it, it's really more the debate over what's your initial loss pick. You know, traditionally, you know, we and others, you know, make you know, pick the loss ratios on a relative basis to the prior years. So, you know, the, I think the key item here is more, what's your starting point? While, you know, we saw improving market conditions the last couple of years, there's, you know, potentially some companies that may have, you know, been a little bit aggressive in their initial loss picks, even for the 2021, 2022, and even 2023 years. You know, with some of the trends that we've seen in the last couple of years, maybe those initial loss picks are just not holding up. For us, it hasn't been an issue. Again, there's some small pockets that, you know, we're watching carefully, but in aggregate, we're very comfortable with, you know, how our reserves look like at this point. Awesome. Maybe moving over, François, to the excellent 1Q 2024 you posted. You know, really hard to poke holes, but I guess if we were to, we would say net written premium in insurance rose 7.3%, which, you know, isn't as robust as maybe you've seen in recent years. So, what should we expect going forward on net written premium for insurance? Yeah, and I made the- I mean, the point on the call, I mean, we had a one-time transaction, a large transaction a year ago that impacted the relative growth, right? So if we excluded that transaction, growth would've been slightly north of 10%, which maybe is a little bit more in line with expectations. Yeah, no question that I think the market has been... We've been in a hard market for, call it, you know, almost five years now, since the fourth quarter of 2019, and- Yeah ... we know it's not gonna be there forever in terms of the opportunities, the dislocation, which is really how we've been able to grow so much faster, I'd say, than the average, than the overall industry. I think is, in specifically, maybe less so in the last, call it, 6-12 months, but from 2019 to certainly end of 2022, early 2023, there was a lot of dislocation in a lot of areas and at different points in time. Again, D&O and, you know, other property, and so there, there's a lot of, you know, lines of business that went through, you know, significant dislocation, participants pulling back, cutting limits, et cetera. So that gave us an opportunity, you know, with our strong balance sheet and, you know, really, really good underwriting to step in and kind of grab market share on some of those lines of business that we thought were extremely well-priced. And, you know, it's proven out to be the case. So, we just see less of that type of dislocation in this environment. I think companies have stabilized their portfolios. There's less people pulling back, not necessarily or very little, you know, I'd say, significant competition from new entrants. It's more the established market participants that we know and compete with. People are a little bit more willing, and given the market conditions, very much a function of understanding the exposure and assessing the risk and seeing the pricing that comes with that. You know, it's just a very healthy level of competition, so the growth opportunities coming from dislocation are just fewer. What does it look like for us for the rest of 2024 as we think about 2025? We expect to still see growth. I think it's still there. There's still very healthy margins, very healthy pricing. But it most likely will not be in the, call it, 20% range or even higher than that, some of the quarters we've had. I think it's, you know, it's tempering or tapering off a little bit. But, you know, what we saw in the first quarter for us was, I'd say, you know, within expectations. Our teams are working hard, and we're chasing and trying to get the business that we think, you know, will produce, you know, very good returns for us. But, you know, it's still very much a function of the market and what opportunities are out there. That was super helpful. And then, you know, maybe, maybe turning to the loss ratio in the insurance segment, you know, it was still outstanding. You had an underlying of 92.7%. You know, all in, it was 94.1%. But it was off about two-ish or so points versus what you... at least on the underlying, versus- Yeah ... what you saw in the prior year quarters. So, I mean, is what we saw in 1Q kind of a good indicator going forward? You know, where do you see the- Yeah -things going? Yeah, I'd say, well, A, there's a little bit of noise from the Baltimore Bridge, the Dali- Right. So that, we, you know, for us, was, you know, not a cat. Others, I think, recognized it a bit differently, but for us, You know, it's just a large claim. That's the business we're in. We're in the risk business, and these things happen, and, you know, we, we, you know, honor our commitments. So, that was reflected in the first quarter. And going forward, I'd say we are, we are cautious. I'd say we are... You know, we think the results that we are able to produce, given, you know, our view of the market, the pricing, the loss trends, you know, the levels of combined ratios, and there's gonna always be a little bit of volatility quarter to quarter. That's just the business we're in. But the combined ratios that we had at Q1 was very much kinda what we think, you know, was, you know, in the range of expectations. What does Q2 look like? Don't know. And, you know, there's always a function of, you know, claims happening here and there, and there's, you know, developments on, you know, prior accident years, et cetera, positive, negative. So that's all part of the picture. But, you know, given what we're still maintaining our margins, expanding margins in a few areas. So I think what we saw in Q1 is, you know, again, very much, you know, within a range of expectations that we're comfortable with. That's good, yeah, 'cause Q1 to your point, Q1 had 2.1 points of Baltimore Bridge in there. Right. So maybe, maybe from an analytical, from where I sit, maybe, maybe I throw that out 'cause it, it's just very unusual- No ... but, Yeah, I mean, it's... But something else could happen this quarter, too. So it's, you know, and that's okay. That's good. That's the- Yeah ... you know, that's the business we're in. Right. That's why you're there. And then, you know, shifting over to reinsurance, I mean, that was blowout quarter. I mean, you came in at an underlying of 78.1. The, the overall combined was 77.4. I mean, just so exceptional. So, what's the sustainability there? I, I can't imagine you can keep that one, at this- Well, we'd like to, but- Right ... we're also realistic that- Yeah ... it's a market, there's cycles, and- Right ... and we'll, you know, see what comes next. You know, it's a very, very healthy reinsurance market. You know, property cat gets a lot of attention, gets a lot of press, and, you know, that's understood, but it's a much, much bigger story for us than just property cat. And we keep saying it, property cat is, you know, I forget the last number, but it's 10% of our reinsurance premium or, you know, it's not a... It's not the driver. It certainly feeds into the overall results, but it's, you know, we're much more than just a property cat story. You know, there's so many areas where the market is very, very strong. I mean, property facultative, for example, a lot of just well, non-cat or less cat-exposed property is very, very strong. Yeah, there's, you know, many lines of business and the specialty side, whether it's it could be anything from A&H to agriculture to the trade credit to, you know, the list goes on. I mean, we do a lot of that, those types of businesses, specialty lines. And market conditions have just been terrific. So, you know, combine that with really, you know, good growth the last few years in reinsurance, and we were able to produce just, you know, $380 million or so of underwriting income from reinsurance in the first quarter. You know, it's just been a terrific story for us, you know, that we've been able to enjoy the market conditions and position ourselves in a way that gives us, you know, a good shot at getting the business and setting our terms and generating, you know, excellent returns. So where, where are we in the, you know, clearly, Arch has done an excellent job of cycle management. Where, where are we in this? Are we, you know, I think, are we around 11:30? Where, where are we in the cycle? Well, we're certainly not at midnight, that's for sure. There's... And with the caveat that, you know, it, it's not just one cycle, right? There, there's many, I mean, sub-cycles as, you know, part of the market. People do point out, you know, D&O, large commercial D&O, specifically on an excess basis, that's been a bit more challenging for most everyone here, in the market the last little while, last 12 months, if not a bit longer. But, you know, and others are still, you know, we think of casualty in the U.S., we think has room to improve further. It's, it's not, not, you know, at peak for sure. So yeah, I mean, in total, like in the, you know, 11 o'clock or so range that we've been, you know, on the Ingrey Clock is a reasonable way to think about it. But I just caution people to that there's nuance around it because again, different lines of business kind of, you know, peak at different times. And we're seeing yet even though and as an example, cyber pricing has come down a little bit, but on a relative basis, may not be the best story. But on an absolute basis, we are still very much thinking that cyber is a good opportunity for us. It's not growing as much as it was, you know, a few years back, but we still like the returns that it produces. You know, we are selective in how we do, you know, who we underwrite and where we participate. But that's an example where a line of business certainly on an absolute basis, sorry, will, we think, can generate very good returns. And then, you know, you have a relative to peers, quite a unique compensation structure in that it's based on the prior 10 underwriting years. So François, what could you share with us about how that compensation structure works? And then how does that affect your recruiting when you're looking for talent? Is this something that's tough for them to stomach, or do they like that? That's a great question. I mean, I'd say the highlights from the comp structure for... You know, and it's not everybody at Arch. I mean, it's very much that the plan that we talk about here, what we call our formula plan, is designed and really focused on our most senior underwriters. And, you know, there's a few people around it, but the people that really, you know, are on the front lines, you know, making the underwriting decisions on what to write, when to write it, et cetera. You know, the key takeaway, which I think makes us unique, is there's nobody at Arch has any incentive to focus, or there's no incentives, you know, that reward people for premium, for top line. So everything is bottom-line focused, everything's ROE-based. And the structure here is, yeah, we, you know, as you know, business, the insurance that we write, the reinsurance that we write, we have a view when we write it, what we think it will generate. But it takes some time for the results to come in and for the business to season. So that's why we call it, it's... Yeah, it's paid over 10 years. It's more, I call it a deferred comp plan a little bit because, you know, we think it's just better to not have to argue over what's the ultimate loss pick for, you know, 2024 business. Might as well just let it season out, and we'll know a lot more about it in a few years' time. And, you know, so there's incremental payments that underwriters get, and, you know, they get payments across, you know, 10 underwriting years. So that's how we manage it. In terms of recruitment, I'd say it's Arch is not for everyone. No question. We strongly believe in our culture. We think it's a key reason why we've been successful and how we, you know, how we've been able to navigate the markets and the cycles. For those, you know, underwriters that have been part of Arch for a long time, they believe in the culture, they believe in the comp plan, and it's been, you know, it's worked out very well for them. For new underwriters, you know, we do recruit, and we like to, you know, add to our team as in areas where we think we, you know, we can get better and find the right people. But certainly it's not for everybody. So there's some people that buy into the story, buy into the opportunity, and are willing to... You know, and we work with them, and there's ways that we can construct, you know, comp, you know, rewards that, you know, we'll still be able to attract new employees, new underwriters. But, you know, some people just don't believe in the same key themes that we do, and we decide to go somewhere else. So it's a great retention tool. I mean, no question that the people that have been with us for a long time, we have, you know, just terrific kind of tenure, and, you know, people have stayed with us for a long time, and that, we think that that's what makes us, makes us better and different. You mentioned, François, that you like the cyber market. We were at the Berkshire shareholder meeting about a month ago, and Ajit Jain, you know, expressed some concerns. Why do you feel like Arch has a handle on it? How do you analyze the PMLs? What gives you confidence that, you know, some nasty event can't really do some damage? Well, there's no guarantees in what we do. That's for sure. And it's cyber is one of them, but, you know, everything we do has, you know, has downside. I mean, and that's the reality of the business we're in. We like to think that we, you know, we can. You know, if we do the work, we spend the time, we can come up with a very honest assessment of the downside. You know, when you deal with an exposure like cyber that is relatively new and has, you know, has not really been, I'd say, tested in a material way, for us, it's very much around risk selection, it's around limits management, it's about, you know, offloading, you know, buying reinsurance or, you know, ceding to partners to make sure that we can manage our downside. And, you know, given our balance sheet, we think, you know, we're not betting the balance sheet, you know, nowhere near. But we are, you know, willing to take a bit of risk. We think the, you know, the rewards, we think the risk-return, you know, proposition is a good one for us at this point. And, you know, we keep improving our tools. There's a lot of work that's being done. But, you know, fundamentally, like, in anything we do, we are very thoughtful and careful about, you know, not overexposing ourselves to, you know, you know, in terms of, you know, limit size and industry concentration. We want to be diversified. We want to be, you know, dealing with multiple types of insurers and different... you know, that don't all have the same characteristics, which, you know, can be a source of concentration and can be problematic if something were to happen. So we're, you know, we're watching it carefully. We get better every day at it, but there's a lot of A&H and the thing that we like about it is the insurers are very much vested in improving their position, right? The way they manage their exposure to cyber risk. Nobody wants to be on the front page of a newspaper, kind of being unable to do business for two weeks because they've been hacked. So there's an alignment of interest where we can actually contribute to the... You know, as part of the underwriting, we can ask the right questions, and, you know, the buyers, the insurers, are very much vested in, in doing what's right for them as well. I see we've got about two minutes remaining on the clock, so I'll ask you one to answer in, like, a minute and thirty seconds, François. Yeah. Then everybody, please join the group meeting afterwards, where you can ask questions as well. So catastrophe losses. I think Colorado State University researchers assume, you know, a very active season here. They're forecasting 23 named storms, 11 hurricanes, five major hurricanes of Category 3. Anyway, this is a big number. Should we be concerned, and how would that affect Arch? I mean, should we be concerned? I mean, people hopefully understand the, you know, the business we're in, so there's risk in what we do. You know, we like to think, and we work very hard to make sure that we price for the risk that we see in front of us. We reprice every year, right? So that's at least a good thing about our business. But there's a random part to what we do that we just can't control. So if, you know, there could be a lot of hurricanes and none of them make landfall, there could be, you know, fewer than 23 and one big one hits, could happen, but I will say that we are prepared for that. We, you know, we are, again, very, very, very, you know, demonstrated that we're good risk managers. We are not, you know, overly exposed in any one area. We, we take it very seriously and, you know, if, if some event happens, we'll, you know, react to it, we think, appropriately and be around to, for, for, for tomorrow, I'd say. François, awesome insights. Really enjoyed hearing about Arch, and we're gonna stay on and look forward to the group session that's gonna start exactly now. Thank you.