Thank you for standing by. My name is Eric, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Chubb Limited First Quarter 2024 Earnings Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question during this time, simply press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, press star one again. I would now like to turn the call over to Karen Beyer, Senior Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our March 31, 2024 first quarter earnings conference call. Our report today will contain forward-looking statements, including statements relating to company performance, pricing, and business mix, growth opportunities, and economic and market conditions, which are subject to risk and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially. Please see our recent SEC filings, earnings release, and financial supplement, which are available on our website at investors.chubb.com for more information on factors that could affect these matters. We will also refer today to non-GAAP financial measures, reconciliations of which to the most direct comparable GAAP measures and related details are provided in our earnings press release and financial supplement. I'd like to introduce our speakers this morning. First, we have Evan Greenberg, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, followed by Peter Enns, our Chief Financial Officer. We'll then take your questions. Also with us to assist with your questions are several members of our management team. Now it's my pleasure to turn the call over to Evan. Good morning. We had an excellent start to the year. Core operating income was up double-digit, driven by all three sources of income. P&C underwriting income was up over 15%, with a published combined ratio of 86. Investment income was up more than 23%, and life insurance income was up almost 10%. We produced double-digit premium revenue growth from across the globe, with strong results in our commercial and consumer P&C and international life businesses. Core operating income was up over 20% to $2.2 billion, and operating EPS was up nearly 23%, $5.41. As you saw, our earnings and EPS benefited modestly from two one-time items that partially offset each other. Adjusting for these, they were up 18.6% and nearly 21%, $5.33. Again, our P&C underwriting income was up over 15% to $1.4 billion, driven by stronger premium growth and great underwriting margins. The ex-CAT current accident year combined ratio was 83.7%. On the investment side, adjusted net investment income of nearly $1.5 billion was up 23.5. We now have more than $140 billion in invested assets, up over 19% the last two years, and our fixed income portfolio yield is 4.9% versus 4.4% a year ago. Our reinvestment rate is currently averaging 6.1%. Our liquidity is very strong, and investment income will continue to grow well as we reinvest cash flows at higher rates. Life segment income of $268 million was up 9.8%. Our annualized core operating ROE was 13.7%, with a return on tangible equity of nearly 22%. Peter will have some more to say about financial items. Turning to growth, pricing, and the rate environment, consolidated net premiums for the company increased over 14%. For global P&C, which excludes agriculture, net premiums increased 13.3% in the quarter, with commercial up over 11% and consumer up over 19%. P&C premium growth in the quarter again was balanced and broad-based globally between areas of the globe and commercial versus consumer, reflecting favorable underwriting and market conditions overall. Life insurance premiums and deposits were up over 39%, driven by our business in Asia and came from a number of countries and distribution channels. Huatai contributed 2.9 and 20.6 percentage points, respectively, to the global P&C and life growth results. In terms of the commercial P&C rate environment, overall conditions were quite favorable in both property and casualty, and price increases exceeded loss costs, while rate decreases in financial lines slowed. So starting with North America, premiums, excluding agriculture, were up over 10% and consisted of 12.3% growth in personal insurance and about 9.5% growth in commercial. P&C lines up 13% and financial lines down about 7.5%. If we adjust the P&C growth to the net impact from two items in the Major Accounts division, P&C lines normalized growth was a very strong 11.6%. The two items were an unusually large structured transaction we wrote, partially offset by the previously discussed corrective underwriting actions in primary and excess casualty that are continuing, continuing to wind down over the next few quarters. By the way, that large structured transaction negatively impacted North America Commercial's combined ratio by over 0.5 point, with the loss ratio impacted by over 1 point. Excluding this impact unmasks the current accident year combined ratio run rate. Supporting North America P&C growth was record new business of over $1.2 billion and a very strong renewal retention on a policy count basis of 84.7. Both speak to the tone of the market and our excellent operating performance. Premiums in our Major Accounts and Specialty division increased 12%, with our large account retail business up 12% and our E&S business up about 10.5%. Premiums in our Middle Market division increased about 7%, with P&C lines up 10.6% and financial lines down 6.5%. Again, the P&C market environment in North America overall is quite favorable and rational. Financial lines aside, pricing increased 12.8%, including rate of 9.4%, an exposure change that acts like rate of 3.1%. From our very large middle market business to small commercial to personal lines, and driven by both property and casualty, we saw the best rates in pricing overall that we've seen in the last four to five quarters. It was one of the best quarters for large account casualty pricing. In our North America business, rate increases for property and casualty exceeded loss cost trends, let alone pricing, which was even stronger. So let me provide a bit more color around rates and pricing. Property pricing was up 13%, with rates up 7.8% and exposure change of 4.8%. Casualty pricing in North America was up 13.1%, with rates up 10.9% and exposure up 2%. In workers' comp, which includes both primary comp and large account risk management, pricing was up 4.8%, with rates up 0.2% and exposure up 4.6%. Loss costs in North America are relatively stable and in line with what we contemplate in our loss picks. We are trending loss costs at 6.8%, short tail classes at 5.3%, and long tail, excluding comp, at 7.6%. We're trending our first dollar workers' comp book at 4.6%. For financial lines, the underwriting environment in a number of classes, in a word, is simply dumb. Rates continue to decline, albeit at a slower pace. We are, of course, trading growth for underwriting margin and income where we need to. In the quarter, rates and pricing for North America Financial lines in aggregate were down 3% and 2.7% respectively. We are trending financial lines loss costs at just over 5%. On the consumer side of North America, our high net worth personal lines business had another outstanding quarter. This is a powerhouse business. Over $5.5 billion in premium last year, and it grew over 12% in the quarter, with new business growth of nearly 35%. It speaks to a franchise and a class of its own in terms of service and capability. Premium growth for our true high net worth Premier and Signature segments, the group that demands the most underwriting and servicing, grew 16.5%. In our homeowners business, we achieved pricing of 17% in the quarter, while our selected loss cost trend remains steady at 1.5. While a small quarter, our agriculture business had a very good underwriting result, as the 2023 crop year turned out a bit better than we projected. Turning to our international general insurance operations, net premiums were up 17.5%, or 16.7% in constant dollars. Our international commercial business grew 11.4%, while our consumer was up over 26%. Growth this quarter was geographically diverse, with all major regions contributing, which again illustrates the true global nature of the company. Asia led the way with premiums up 40%. Excluding Huatai's contribution, premiums were up 7.7%. Latin America had a strong quarter, with premiums up about 13%, while the continent of Europe grew 10.3%. We continue to achieve positive rate to exposure across our international commercial portfolio, with retail property and casualty lines pricing up 5.5%, and financial lines pricing down 2.3%. Loss cost inflation across our international retail commercial portfolio is trending at 5.8%, with P&C lines trending 6.1% and financial lines trending 4.8%. Within our international consumer P&C business, our personal lines division had an exceptional quarter, with constant dollar growth of 47%, led by Asia and Latin America. By the way, the modest increase in Overseas General's ex-CAT current accident year combined ratio this quarter was primarily due to the consolidation of our China business. In our international life insurance business, which is overwhelmingly Asia, premium and deposits were up over 50% in constant dollar, with strong contributions from Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, and Korea. Excluding Huatai Life, premiums and deposits were up over 10%. Depending on the country, growth was driven by tied agency, brokerage, and direct marketing distribution channels. Lastly, Global Re had a strong quarter, with premium growth of almost 30% and a combined ratio of 76.9%. We allocate incrementally more CAT capacity to our reinsurance business and grew both our CAT excess and risk property portfolios, in particular this quarter. In summary, we had an excellent quarter and start to the year. We remain well-positioned to continue producing outstanding results through the balance of the year and beyond. We remain confident in our ability to continue growing operating earnings at a rapid pace through P&C revenue growth and underwriting margins, investment income, and life income. I'm now going to turn it over to Peter, and then we're going to come back, and we're going to take your questions. Thank you, Evan. As you've all just heard, we continued to build on the momentum of our record 2023 year, with strong growth in top line and earnings per share this quarter. We continue to effectively manage our balance sheet and ended the quarter in a strong financial position, including book value that exceeded $60 billion and cash and invested assets of $143 billion, each topping last quarter's all-time highs. Adjusted operating cash flow was $3.6 billion. There were two one-time earnings items this quarter that I would like to touch on. First, we recognized an incremental $55 million deferred tax benefit related to the new 2023 Bermuda Corporate Income Tax Law. This resulted from finalizing our review of two smaller subsidiaries since last quarter. We don't expect additional deferred tax gains related to this law going forward. Second, there was a contribution made to the Chubb Foundation, charitable foundation of $30 million pre-tax or $24 million after tax. These items provided a net benefit of $0.08 per share. Additionally, there were two other noteworthy items in the quarter. In March, we issued $1 billion of 10-year debt to retire existing debt due to retire, mature in May 2024. Lastly, we closed on an additional 9% of shares of Huatai that brought our ownership interest to 85.5%. This leaves the last tranche of less than 1% of outstanding Huatai shares remaining to close. During the quarter, book and tangible book value per share, excluding AOCI, increased 2.2% and 2.9% respectively from December 31st, driven by strong operating results, partially offset by $350 million in dividends and $316 million in share repurchases in the quarter. Turning to investments, our A-rated portfolio produced adjusted net investment income of $1.48 billion, slightly beating our guidance of $1.45 billion. We expect our adjusted net investment income to have a run rate of approximately $1.5 billion-$1.52 billion next quarter and to go up from there. Turning to underwriting results, the quarter included pre-tax catastrophe losses of $435 million, which is modestly lower relative to prior year and is principally from winter storms and other weather-related events in the U.S. Prior period development in the quarter in our active companies was a positive $216 million pre-tax, with favorable development of $311 million in short tail lines, primarily from property and credit-related lines, and $95 million of unfavorable development in long-tail lines, which was primarily from excess casualty and was within our range of expectations. Our corporate run-off portfolio had unfavorable development of $9 million pretax. Our paid- to- incurred ratio for the quarter was 84%. Our reported core effect, effective tax rate was 15.2%, or 17.3% for the quarter, excluding the update to our Bermuda tax benefit. As I said before, our first quarter tax rate also tends to be the lowest of the year due to certain tax benefits associated with equity award vesting and stock option exercises. We continue to expect our annual core operating effective tax rate for the full year to be in the range of 18.75%-19.25%. I now turn the call back over to Karen. Thank you. At this point, we're happy to take the questions. At this time, I would like to remind everyone, in order to ask a question, press star, then the number one on your telephone keypad. Your first question comes from the line of David Motemaden with Evercore ISI. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning. First question, Evan, I just wanted to maybe get a little bit more detail on the $95 million of unfavorable reserve development on the long tail lines that you guys took this quarter. And maybe just unpack that a little bit more would be helpful. Yeah. Good morning. Look, we recognized over $200 million of reserve releases, so keeping perspective, and that included adverse development of $95 million in North America commercial lines, long tail. It was not concentrated in any one period, it was spread out from 2016 forward. It was predominantly large account, excess casualty, auto-related in areas we've discussed, trucking, logistics companies, companies with large commercial fleets. And it's the business we've been addressing in terms of rate and underwriting actions, and in that case, think retentions. And our loss picks that reflect our action. In fact, when we talk about that, we gave you color around that we had this large LPT that was larger than usual, and then we, you know, offset to a degree by the underwriting actions that we've been taking, and, you know, you heard it all last quarter, and it'll run two or more, maybe two more quarters. That's all related back to the same business as you know. So there's the mental model. The development was not a surprise 'cause we continually track actual versus expected activity for all product lines. And we had continued to observe higher than expected loss activity for this business. So, you know, we study it more deeply this quarter, and we, we took, as we always will, we took, we took the bad news and, you know, we are slow to recognize good news. No different than I said last quarter, our reserves are really strong. Got it. That's helpful. And then I did notice that the commercial casualty net premium written growth accelerated during the quarter. And you mentioned, you also mentioned, the rate increases accelerated a little bit in the quarter as well in commercial casualty. Could you just talk about how you're thinking about balancing all the elevated uncertainty in the environment with leaning into growth, which it seems like you guys are doing a little bit? Well, the growth is coming. It It wasn't a little bit. It was, you know, it was a step change in the rate we got exceeded loss cost, let alone pricing, which includes exposure change. And that is what contributed substantially to the growth. We grew exposure as well, particularly in our middle market long tail business, though there was some growth in particular lines in large accounts as well, where the pricing. You know, the vast majority of our book is adequately priced in casualty, and we're getting rate that recognizes loss cost trend, and so we maintain the adequacy. And then the stress classes, which need rate to hit our target combined ratios, that's where rate has accelerated in the market. We, because the market is also reacting, we're able to achieve, and grow the business to a degree. Otherwise, we get the rate- Understood ... the business. And you know, and there are one or two classes where that's occurring. Got it. Okay. That's helpful. Thanks for the detail. Thank you, guys. Your next question comes from the line of Mike Zaremski with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Hey, thanks, Scott. Good morning. Now on the topic of social inflation, you know, I think, you know, I'm assuming, you know, we—when we think about social inflation, that the main way to tackle it is risk selection and pricing, et c. But, I recall in your shareholder letter, Evan, you talked about, you know, working, or maybe you can elaborate. You and others have talked about kind of, it sounds like a more concerted effort to lobby efforts or to maybe state by state see if there could be some reforms. Just curious if you could elaborate, if there's anything changing there in terms of what Chubb or the industry is doing to maybe tackle it from the back end or... Thanks. Yeah. First of all, our loss picks reflect the reality of the environment around the inflation we observe, and that includes any actions as we know them to be that might ameliorate it around tort reform. Tort reform is gonna be a long-term, never-ending process. As you say, it's not gonna be federal, state by state. It could be county by county, depending. And it depends on the class of business as to the kind of reform that's required to bend that curve to loss cost. The insurance industry can support tort reform, and does. The insurance industry can't particularly lead it. We don't have the printing press. This is ultimately paid for by corporate America, and it's paid for by consumers, by the products and the services from corporate America. It's a tax on everybody, if you look at it in a clear-eyed way. We reflect the inflation that we see, whether it comes from social inflation, so-called social inflation, or other causes, in the prices and the rates we ultimately charge corporate America to the business. Tort reform comes, and there's litigation finance, where disclosure laws have to change around that, and I mentioned that in the letter. Some states require it, most don't. It's very simple because it puts in context, how sympathetic is the plaintiff, and what are the motives? There's laws around who bears liability, the responsibility, what they call joint and several, laws around it. You could be 1% liable, but you're the only one with any money, so they make you 100% responsible financially. There are reasons that that occurs, but, that is also being gamed, by the trial bar, in how they target cases and how they target companies. It's those sorts of things. The insurance industry is hardly sympathetic. Corporate America needs to do more in this case, and we are all active. A number of companies are active, in advocating for reforms, but it's not a magic... You know, it's no silver magic bullet. It's gonna take many years, and it's gonna require more effort, than is currently being expended. Great. Switching gears, maybe a quicker question on personal lines. If I look at kind of what Chubb has said about kind of loss cost inflation and personal lines, and appreciating you have a different book than the average of your peers. But you all have been talking about kind of close to double digit or double digit loss cost inflation for many years now. It feels like that's been you know, some of your peers have caught up to you in terms of I think they were underestimating it. But just curious, if you can provide any context. Is the loss cost inflation more so coming from weather inflation, or is it just as much coming from wage inflation, or just any context unpacking that kinda 10.5% loss inflation? Thanks. Yeah. It comes from three sources or a couple of sources. It comes from frequency of loss and from various perils. And so there you could think weather-related, but you could also think water-related, and so the infrastructure impact to housing stock itself. It comes from wage inflation, and it comes from materials, which, remember, we insure not the average homeowner. We're insuring those who are more affluent. And our product is a richer product in terms of how it responds to loss and the position it places you back in following loss. We try to duplicate exactly what you had before the loss. Not sort of like it, but we duplicate it. That has an inherent inflation to it as well. We insure more complex properties, and we insure more complex and expensive content. So that may contribute to a greater amount of inflation than you might see generally across. But we stay on top of it, and we have, and we've stayed on top of it in terms of both pricing and the amount of coverage we give to our clients, so they don't fall behind. Which for all our homeowners insureds, that shows up, yes, in your bill that you get once a year from us, me included. Your next question comes from the line of Gregory Peters with Raymond James. Please go ahead. Well, good morning, everyone. Thanks for all your comments. When I was looking through your results, I was particularly struck by the growth in the reinsurance lines. Seems to have accelerated, and I'm just curious if there's a change in your perspective regarding leading into those market conditions? Yeah. Greg, keep in mind, you know, percentages are a funny thing. It's not a big business. It's not a big book of business. We're not a large reinsurer. So the percentage growth, which is very good to see, is off of a relatively small base. So in dollar terms, it's nice. Thank you very much to all our Global Re colleagues, but it's not a large amount. We allocated, given the pricing environment and given structure, and given underlying pricing and structure of cedents' portfolios, we allocated more incrementally, as I said in the opening, more CAT capacity with to Global Re, which means they're writing a bit more CAT excess and a bit more property proportional and excess per risk. And it's across the globe where they see favorable conditions. That's predominantly what the difference is. Okay, fair enough. I know I got to preview this question knowing that I'm probably not going to get a great answer, but I feel like it's appropriate to ask. You can ask anyway, and you'll get a lousy answer. Go ahead. Well, the topic is M&A. I mean, you featured it, you talked about, you know, the 1-2 points of drag you get on holding excess capital. You mentioned that in your shareholder letter. You're generating great results. I feel like this is a time where we could see you get more active in the market, but maybe you can just talk to us broadly about what you're seeing in the market. Is there a pipeline out there, or is it, you know, is there a lot of opportunities or? Give us some perspective, if possible. Greg, I'm at rest. And, the results are terrific. You know, we have excess capital for both risk and opportunity. It's earning, putting money to work at over 6% right now. If you put the capital against our invested asset, it requires it's earning a really damn good ROE. The cash that we hold is accretive to shareholder returns. And, you know, look, we're a global company with a lot of global opportunity, and our eyes are always open. But as I said, I'm at rest. Don't hold your breath. Okay, I had to give it a shot. Thanks. Yeah, got it. Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Autonomous. Please go ahead. Hey, thanks. Good morning. Morning. I guess first question, just on financial lines. I think you said that it's quite frankly done. Now, that's obviously like a pretty broad set of various lines within financials. I think I heard you say that you're shrinking in mid-market too. It's been my perception that that was a little bit more disciplined than some of the major account stuff. So just curious if you could just take us within financial lines, whether it's account size or D&O, excess, you know, whatever, like, where are folks acting more or less irrationally? Yeah. You know, look, the way to think about this, don't just think... It behaves differently to a degree in major account than it does in middle market, in the cohorts that show up where market competition is irrational. I'm not gonna unpack each one of those, but what I'll tell, what I'll break down for you is this: you have publicly traded D&O, and whether it's in middle market or it's in large account, there is dumb behavior, depending on the cohort. I'm not going to unpack which one of them it is, that much transparency, but you see it in large account, and you see it in publicly traded D&O. There is not-for-profit D&O. We write it in both major accounts, and we write it in middle market. And by the way, we write it in E&S. And there are cohorts where the market, we know, because we're the largest writers of this business, we know what the experience is, what the real exposures are, where losses are coming from, the market in pockets of that, important pockets, irrational, dumb. Employment practices liability. Again, not going to say which cohorts, but the market is, many are very naive and don't understand the trends and the exposures that are driving EPLI, and where it's being driven, what states, where have laws changed? Is it, is it around, it's not simply wage and hour, now technology impacts it. There are those who have no idea what's catching up to them. And then you have legal changes that are occurring at the federal level that are impacting financial lines. You can see it, and it's coming. So the good news about the business is it's claims-made. It reveals its secrets pretty quickly. That will occur, and this is a big company. We got a lot of opportunity in a lot of places, and in some of those areas, we're just not going to follow people off the cliff. It doesn't matter. Got you. And follow up, just shifting gears, just curious about priorities in U.S. personal lines. It kind of felt like, you know, you had this stuff in California a few years ago, that in the past few years, it's sort of been more of a business where you've been focused more on risk selection and growth for good reason. But I mean, it looks like it's more than $1 billion of underwriting earnings today. It looks well underwritten. Just maybe if you could update us on, yeah, like, what are the key sets of priorities in terms of managing that business right now? Well, key sets of priorities, good question. On one hand, we can continue pushing the envelope, and we're impatient about it, on how we define the services, and coverages that a customer in our space ought to expect from a great carrier. The kind of resiliency services and engineering services, the kinds of technology that we can use to interface with our customers and give them a better experience, how we can use technology and claims and manage a better and more seamless outcome for them. All of that is wrapped up in how we think about that heart of the business. Our clients are CAT- exposed. They were in a world where they choose to live, where they live, and know and make the choice to live where they're more CAT- exposed. They will share more risk with us, but we can help them manage that risk and the portion that they share, and as well, reduce the exposure to loss on the portion we take. It also is allowing us, as we're doing that, both through admitted and non-admitted, to, in a sense, manufacture more CAT capacity, which is really a part of the ability or fuel to take on more exposure. We have a finite balance sheet, we can't take infinite risk, so we think about it in that regard. Our pricing and the rate against exposure from perils continues to improve. We can keep pushing the envelope on how granular we become in terms of risk rating, more cohorts of risk, to apply rate and price against. We're continuing to do that, but we're restless about that. We can be even better at it. That allows us to provide more coverage in areas, think about it, like flood, where we have areas where we're actually leaning in to offer more protection to clients, but be able to manage the portfolio. Maybe that gives you a few. Yep, that's helpful. Thanks. Y our next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith with UBS. Yeah. Please go ahead. Oh, thank you. Appreciate it. Evan, just curious, and I'm sure there's some moving parts here, but can you help me kind of square in North America Commercial? You know, I'm looking at gross written premiums up a little over 2%, and then your nets up 9.5%. And I've seen your ceded premiums kind of continue to drop the last couple of quarters. Is there something going on there? Is it technical? Are you buying less reinsurance? What's going on? Yeah. I'm going to let John Lupica give this to you. It's really coming-- It, it came this quarter from two things, and that LPT, I forget, I think, had a had an impact on the... It, it distorted the gross in that. Yeah, Brian, and, you know, as Evan had noted, we had that large structured transaction this quarter that produced net written premium with no gross written premium. In addition, we had exited two large MGAs or fronted programs that historically produced a lot of gross with very little net. When you adjust for those three items, the gross and net are virtually identical. That's really- That's the same answer on the net to gross ratio. It's really transactional, not, not fundamental. Got you. No change in reinsurance by now. That makes sense. Yeah, I just see. Okay, excellent. And then, Evan, I may have missed this, but you provide a lot of great kind of pricing rate and trend exposure commentary. But did you, did you give us what the kind of total North America commercial pricing, call it, rate and, and trend was? And if not, can we get that? You typically provided it. I did give it to you. You did. Are you asking me to go back and do it again? Do you actually want me to look at it? I'll give it to you if you want me to take my notes and do it or take your report. Listen, North America, I said pricing increased 12.8, including in P&C, including rate of 9, exposure change of 3.1. Got you. And, um- Trend. Loss for us. I said we're trending short tail at 6.8, and long tail, short tail—sorry, overall loss cost 6.8, short tail 5.3, long tail 7.6. Great. That's helpful. Thank you. Yeah. This is full service call. Appreciate it. See you. See you. Just like homeowners. Now, you're welcome. Okay. Your next question comes from the line of Bob Huang with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Yeah, good morning. Hopefully, I'm not asking anyone to repeat anything, but just a quick question on your annual shareholder letter, right? You talked about the willingness to pull back on unprofitable lines, a demonstration of underwriting discipline. But just kind of really curious as to how to square away that line of thinking with your first quarter results, because it seems like the first quarter results continue to demonstrate a lot of strength, a lot of growth. Is the financial line somewhere you're looking at as a- Hey, you're not listening. Not listening. Did you see that? So I'm going to interrupt you. Are you really? Financial lines, Frank, number one. Number two, I said right up front in major accounts, in certain areas of casualty, where we're taking action, and we saw it last quarter, saw it this quarter, and it impacts growth. And then there are other areas growing. Those are two that are visible. No, okay. By the way, by the way, look at our 20-year track record over any period of time where we have shrunk our business, cut businesses in half over periods of time when we couldn't earn an underwriting profit and then tripled them after that. Do you have another question for me? No, I think that's very helpful. Yeah, it helps me contextualize things. Thank you. You're welcome. Your next question comes from the line of Robert Cox with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hey, a high-level question. So Chubb produced an 86% combined ratio, which has continued to improve, and, you know, net investment income contributions to ROEs have gone up. I know there's more bifurcation than ever with respect to pricing adequacy by line of business, but I'm curious, when do you think the market will sort of dictate the matching of rate and loss trend versus the excess margin you're generating now? I'm not sure I understand your question. Sorry. So I'm curious. Yeah, I'm just curious when you think basically rate and loss trend will be at similar levels versus rate exceeding loss trend? I have no idea. It depends on when the market, and, and it'll never really happen, but, so you're asking in a very theoretical way, for something neat and what is a market. So it's always inherently messy. But when, typically, when rate and price are adequate or in excess of what's required to earn a reasonable return, then the market, in time, notices and responds and becomes more competitive. And at that time, rate and price stay steady with loss cost, and then the market begins to go soft. And when that part of the cycle happens, it means that rate and price are less than loss cost. And that is not terrible until rate and price versus loss cost is not enough to achieve a reasonable return on capital. Thanks for that color. Maybe just to follow up on that, curious if you think that, you know, with data and analytics, these cycles are becoming less volatile over time? Oh, in some areas, yes. Some areas, absolutely not, because the loss cost environment, which data and analytics cannot help you with, is not less volatile. When the loss cost environment is more specific, i.e., loss cost inflation, then with data and analytics in steady periods like that, then the amplitude of cycles is different. Thanks. Really helpful. Your next question comes from the line of Jimmy Bhullar with J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning. So I had a question on just your comments on dumb behavior in financial lines. I was wondering if you could talk about who it is that you're seeing being undisciplined. Is it companies that are established, that are large players in the market, or smaller competitors, new money that's coming? Just some color on who's driving, 'cause it's been going on for a while. Next question, Jimmy. Not gonna comment? All right. So- No. And then on casualty reserves, there's been a lot of talk about post-COVID or pre-COVID years starting to emerge negatively, and a few companies have seen post-COVID adverse development as well. So any comments you can make on your view of casualty reserves overall for the industry and for your own book? You know, we did expect a change of loss cost pattern, frequency in particular. And we had talked about it during COVID, that we didn't take the head fake that loss costs during shutdown. Obviously, courts are closed, frequency plummets, and as does severity. And at that time, we maintained our view. We saw right through it and said, "You know, trends aren't changing," so we continued to trend. It's just a question of reporting, and what period does it get reported in? So we expected that the trend doesn't change, but the reporting pattern changes. So therefore, if you really want to look at it in a correct way, you'd say it went down during COVID to reaccelerate after COVID, and then the expected cohorts of claims in aggregate still appear. And that's what we've seen. The pattern post-COVID is not out of line with our expectations in our pricing and loss effects. Okay. And just for Peter, do you expect a change in your tax rate next year, given the changes in Bermuda? And to the extent you can quantify the expected tax rate. For next year and after, it's just too early to say. There's too many moving parts in terms of how the different countries are going to adopt, and, you know, we're looking at it closely, but it's just too early to say. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Your next question comes from the line of Cave Montazeri with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Good morning. There was nothing called out this quarter with regards to the Baltimore bridge losses. I appreciate it's early days, but is there any color worth sharing with us on this topic? You know, our policy is we do not report on individual claims, but I've noticed a lot of commentary on this. You know, look, it's a tragedy and that an accident like this occurs and, you know, it's done a lot of damage. However, when it comes to Chubb, it's another large loss. There is nothing. Yeah, of course, we have exposure, but the exposure is within what we would contemplate, and there's nothing outsized to us, and so, another large unfortunate claim, that's all there is to it. Your next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks, good morning. My first question, Evan, I was hoping you could just provide some more color on what drove the sequential acceleration and exposure growth that you pointed to within, you know, property casualty as well as within workers' comp? Well, what I said, Elyse, thank you, is the premium growth, 'cause we don't really discuss exposure, but the premium growth came from a substantial portion of it, came from rate and price, which were very healthy across the portfolio. Property grew. Property grew nicely. Property was our biggest growth area. Casualty grew, particularly in our middle market area and E&S. And rate and price had a substantial contribution to the growth, though we also grew new business where pricing versus loss cost is healthy to us. Thanks. And then, my follow-up, you highlighted, you know, some, you know, planned reunderwriting within North America Commercial. I believe, you know, you had also told us about that last quarter, and it sounds like we'll have that worked through for the next couple quarters. So is the right way to think about, I guess, the growth in North America Commercial, ex the LPT and just, the reunderwriting as kind of the baseline of growth for the year? I know you don't like to guide, but, and you seem pretty positive- Oh, I- about just casualty pricing and things like that. Just trying to pull it all together. I'm not going to help you with your worksheet. I'm sorry, Elyse. We don't guide growth for the year. What we did tell you is excluding the LPT, excluding the unusual size of the LPT, 'cause we have LPTs virtually every quarter, but excluding the unusual size of it and what we view as the unusual one-time underwriting action in large account that I described, the net of that, we gave you a growth rate, and we said that's the underlying growth rate for the quarter. That is not. We didn't say that's a run rate for the year. This is a diversified commercial and personal property casualty book of business, and we're hardly... We don't give guidance on growth for the year. Got it. Thank you. You're welcome. I will now turn the call back over to Karen Beyer for closing remarks. Please go ahead. Thanks, everyone, for joining us today. If you have any follow-up questions, we'll be around to take your call. Enjoy the day. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining, and you may now disconnect your lines.