All right. I think we're right about time. You know, my pleasure to welcome Rob Berkley, President and CEO of W. R. Berkley. Thanks for being here with us, Rob. Thank you. Figured to kick it off, just give us some background and kinda where the business stands today and kinda what the strategy is going forward. Well, first off, thanks for the invite to participate, Rob, and thank you to everyone here this morning. We appreciate your interest in the company. It's a for what's viewed by many as a sleepy industry. It's been a very interesting time, I think, for insurance in general and certainly commercial lines included. The world, as we all know, is moving at an ever-increasing pace. We all appreciate that there are new risks that are coming into pretty sharp focus, and it's every day. That having been said, the insurance industry exists to help society manage risk. So what seems like a sleepy industry, it's actually pretty dynamic as far as the opportunity goes. In addition to that, we all know that we are living through a period of time that could be labeled a data era. And there is very few, if any, industries that are more data-centric than the insurance industry. That's been the case in the past. That's the case today and will likely continue to be the case going forward. Digital, obviously, playing an important part. And then finally, for some period of time, it seemed like the world forgot about investment income as a component of an insurance company's economic model, particularly during a period of time when interest rates were at historic lows for some number of years. So with all of that as a backdrop, what does it mean for us? We as an organization are a collection of effectively 60 different specialty businesses. The level of change and new risk and volatility in the world naturally lends itself particularly well for creating opportunity for specialty players. The data front, we have made great investment, and the opportunity for us to keep pushing on that front and clearly AI adds a dimension to that opportunity is very exciting for us as an organization. We can get into that more, Rob, if you or others wish to later on, but clearly, our model allows us to marry up a distributed model when it comes to data and analytics and along with a more centralized or collaborative model as well, and then finally, on the topic of digital, from our perspective, the insurance industry has been very slow to change in how it transacts and how it informs and how it engages, both with traditional distribution as well as with ultimately customer or insured, and I said finally a moment ago, one other thing. I think clearly for us as an organization, this return to a more traditional level of interest rates and what that means for investment income for an economic model such as ours is quite material. So I don't know if I touched on anything you were looking for, Rob, but hopefully somewhere amongst that there was an answer. No, that's great. I wanted to zone in on something you said. You said that the 60 or so businesses, you've got 60 or so, you know, independently managed underwriting units. Can you talk about cycle management and how the firm is leveraging those independent units during this phase of the cycle? I think there are a couple of things that are important to note. One, this traditional view of the insurance cycle, in my opinion, is somewhat dated. When I first got into the industry, all product lines within the commercial lines space, by and large, directionally would march in lockstep. Market conditions would improve and all product lines would be enjoying a hardening market. What has happened more recently is, yes, that cycle, which we can get into more later if people choose to, which in spite of technology and data is still driven by two human emotions, that being fear and greed, but that cycle remains intact, but product lines have decoupled and they are not marching in lockstep. Long story short, why does that matter? Because it lends itself particularly well to an organization like ours, where we have 60 different businesses that are all focused on different niches within the broad marketplace. It allows them to have focused discipline that stems from expertise within that niche. It allows for greater visibility as to what are those market conditions and is it an opportunity for us to be leaning into it and playing more and having more of an offensive posture, or is it a moment where we need to be taking a more defensive posture? Our structure also allows for not just doling out authority. It allows for greater accountability. So it is very clear to us as to what the market conditions are for each one of the businesses that make up our group. We have clarity around how each one of those businesses is performing, and we can engage in a dialogue around, is this a moment that we should be leaning into it or taking a more defensive posture? I think the last point that I would make that ties in, at least in my opinion, with those comments, Rob, is for us, and it's a little bit of a different view, I think, than some of our peers. While on the surface, it would appear as though we are in business to issue insurance policies, we have a view that's a little different than that. We view ourselves as capital managers, no different than many of the people in this room. Every day we select and we price risk, and oftentimes the right decision is not to write the business. So when I say we are capital managers, the point I'm trying to highlight is that we are not in business to issue insurance policies. We are in business to make good risk-adjusted returns. And it seems like a simple concept, but if you look at the behavior of the industry, it would suggest that that idea seems to be lost on many. Okay. And so the sum of those niches that you operate in, you previously highlighted that kinda points to 10%-15% growth for the business. Can you talk about what's been driving that growth, and is there any reason to believe, you know, you couldn't continue producing that level of growth? So the bookends that we've provided for people is at a very macro level and sort of directionally where we see things going. Obviously, in any quarter or two, that can prove to be higher. It can prove to be lower. So if we unpack that a little bit, where did we come up with those numbers? It's fundamentally our view that loss-cost trend or loss-cost inflation continues to burn, particularly in the liability lines. And we can get into more detail to the extent people wish to later on. But that reality is forcing us as an organization and for those responsible operators in the industry, them as well, to continue to push on rate. So when you look at the rate that we as an organization have been achieving for the past several years, it sort of ranges between, call it 6%-10% or so. And more recently, it's been sort of floating between, call it 6%-8%. So when we talk about the growth rate, I think it's important for people to keep in mind that, yes, we expect to be able to grow more often than not, for the foreseeable, at the rate that you were talking about, but a meaningful percentage of that is gonna be driven by the rate increases that are required to make sure we preserve appropriately our margins. In addition to that, just the growth rate comment, I think, ties back in with this discussion around product lines decoupling in the cycle. The reality is, once upon a time, you would see higher peaks and lower valleys because of the breadth of our offering and how we participate in the marketplace. You know, we just are not gonna see necessarily those same opportunities to grow 30%, 40%, 50% in the aggregate like perhaps we once would, but you're also not gonna see us shrinking the business. But if you dissect the organization, there are parts of it at any moment in time that can be shrinking considerably and parts of it that are growing dramatically. Okay. And you've touched on social inflation there, and you guys have been vocal about this issue in the past. You know, what has W. R. Berkley done to address this issue in the portfolio? And can you give us an update on kind of what you're seeing and mark to market on those trends today? Okay. I think that social inflation, which is just a fancy choice of words to describe larger awards coming out of the legal environment today than yesterday, and the expectation that they will be even larger tomorrow than they are today. From our perspective, it is a reality that the industry was late to wrapping their head around. I appreciate the comment about us being earlier than many, but it highlighted the challenge that this industry faces, and that is you don't know your costs of goods sold with any clarity or certainty until some number of years after you've made the sale. With that having been said, so what are we doing to manage that? A, first and foremost, we try and be very honest with ourselves about the realities of the situation. Number two, we try and respond to the data in a timely way. Oftentimes, that means that we will be pushing harder on rate than some of our peers. Oftentimes, that means that there will be certain territories because of the legal environment in a particular jurisdiction that we will be dialing down. So it's not just about charging more. It's also about, are you willing to entertain the risk? Furthermore, limits control from our perspective is very important. And it's not just about the limit you put out. It's about the size of the tower. If we focus on it a little more carefully, clearly, a lot of what we are seeing is an emboldened plaintiff bar. And an emboldened plaintiff bar tends to focus on where the money is. So from our perspective, it's not just about how much we charge. It's not just about the exposure. It's also about what the jurisdiction is and finally how large the tower is. Less insurance, whether it's ours or a full tower including others, means less focus from a plaintiff attorney. Okay. And I wanted to ask a related topic on reserves. There's been some industry discussion that some of the more recent accident years, like 2021 to 2023, have had some adverse development, kinda similar. And there's discussion around, you know, these years may be mispriced, similar to like the 2015, 2019 accident years. Curious if you have a view on that, for the industry and what you would say about W. R. Berkley? So are we talking about calendar year or policy year? I'm assuming we're talking about policy year. Policy year. Yeah. So from my perspective, different organizations accepted the reality of social Inflation at different moments in time. The later that you start to wrap your head around that reality and began to respond to it, the farther behind you are and the more likely you are going to have pain in the more recent years. The earlier that you focused on it and took appropriate action, the less likely it is that you are going to have this type of challenge or indigestion, to say the least. So that's how I think about it. I think there were some folks that run from their problems as opposed to running to their problems. And those that run from their problems, I think you're gonna probably see continued development. Those that run towards their problems and recognize the issue and responded. I think more likely than not, it is going to more quickly be behind them. To answer the latter part of your question, Rob, I believe that we are amongst the group that focused on it earlier, have been quite transparent about it, including the rate that we get on a quarterly basis and why, and have been pushing on it pretty hard. So I expect that we are towards the front of the pack. Yep. Okay. And you've mentioned the claim cost pressure and casualty lines. And you've also noted, more recently, that there's been some stabilization in the commercial property market. Just curious on your view of the pricing sustainability here. Going back to the comment earlier and as you're flagging, you know, different product lines are in different places. From you know, barring the unforeseen event, and no one knows exactly what tomorrow will bring, but property cat has peaked. My guess is that all things being equal, property cat's gonna be off 5%-15% at 1/1, and while you continue to see primary property pricing picking up or certainly flat and in some cases ticking up, I think you should expect that it's just a matter of time until that property cat reality trickles through to the primary property market. Some of the other lines where social inflation is very pronounced, particularly in the liability lines, I think you're gonna continue to see rates moving up and the market responding to that. Certainly that's what we have every intention of doing. Got it. And, Berkley has sort of opportunistically shifted some premium mix to property, over the course of recent periods. Is pricing still attractive in these markets? And how do you think about increasing property exposure in the context of WRB. being a firm that puts a premium on limited volatility? So I think that property today is still attractive, and we're using a very broad brush. So I think some property is more attractive than others. That having been said, we don't have a problem with property. And for that matter, we don't have a problem with property cat. And we don't have a problem with volatility. We have a problem when we don't think you're getting paid appropriately. And one of the issues we used the terminology earlier, risk-adjusted return, but one of the issues is when you have a marketplace that, in our opinion, does not consistently fold in or incorporate volatility as a component of risk, we think that's an issue. So, you know, clearly, it has been an attractive moment for property cat. More recently, we did dial that part of our portfolio up, even primary, cat-exposed property and property in general. To your point, Rob, yes, we've dialed it up. We are still heavily weighted towards the liability lines. I don't see that shifting. And as you see the property market become more competitive, you should expect us to dial that down. And it is simply not we're stepping away from the market. Rather, we're in the market every day in a manner that we think is responsible. And to the extent that the market moves away from us, that's okay. We'll meet again when it gets disciplined in the future. Got it. Okay. And putting the property side together with the casualty side, you know, the Berkley insurance segment has been achieving high single-digit pricing. And you've noted that it's in excess of claim cost trend or, you know, hypothetically building margin. How should we think about the trajectory of the underlying loss ratio into 2025? I think that the business is running particularly well today. We are generating high teens, low 20s returns. And from our perspective, we also are conscious of the lesson that we all learned or were reminded of coming out of the 2016 through 2019 period. And it's the point that I made earlier. And I think everyone here is acutely aware of this mismatch in timing of when you sell your product and when you know the outcome. So what is the punchline, Rob? The punchline is this: the business is running at a very healthy level. And we do not think that it's in the best interest of the business to introduce any additional risk. So yeah, are we to put a finer point on it? Are we more likely than not, in my opinion, erring on the side of caution in how we are booking the current year and perhaps next year? Yes, I think there is some evidence that could support that. But we, given how there's just no catalyst for us to want to be more aggressive or declare victory prematurely. Got it. Maybe shifting to the E&S market. So Berkley is a prominent company in the specialty excess and surplus lines market. I was just hoping to get an update from you on where you think this market is headed. It now represents 25% or so of the commercial lines market. Is there room for E&S to become even bigger part of the market? The short answer is yes. Maybe taking half a step back, what has led to this situation? It's a combination, in my opinion, of social inflation, which has led to loss cost trend being particularly steep, and quite frankly, an insurance industry that is struggling to adapt to these new realities. There are a variety of reasons for that. Perhaps the biggest pinch point in allowing the industry, particularly the standard market, to adapt is the regulatory structure. Said differently, the E&S market picks up the crumbs that fall off the standard market table. In an environment which is pretty dynamic in loss cost trend, whether it be a couple of years ago, financial or economic, or social inflation having more of an impact on the longer tail lines, that's forcing the standard market to have to respond to these trends. The standard market has to go to insurance departments across the country to get new rates and forms approved. To the extent that that is not happening because of staffing issues in insurance departments or other reasons, that ties the hands of the standard market. Consequently, they have a choice. They live with pricing that is inadequate and they write the business, or they recognize that's irresponsible and they let the business go. As a result of letting the business go, it goes to the E&S market. So to answer your question more specifically, Rob, I don't see the E&S market dramatically losing the momentum that it has enjoyed until we see a flattening of trend and a change in the regulatory environment and how responsive it is able to be. Got it, and, you know, how does reinsurance and multi-line assets fit into the picture? I wanted to ask, you know, how the opportunity to deploy capital within those businesses is shaping up compared to the insurance business. So clearly, excess is a wide open space. We like the opportunity there. But, you know, clearly, the more excess you are, whether that be through primary excess or insurance excess or reinsurance, that is more leverage. So you need to pay attention to leverage trend. I think what's one of the interesting things about the reinsurance space is if you're a disciplined operator, in some ways, it's easier to be nimble and step in and step out of markets. We, as an organization, are very fortunate that we have some exceptionally capable people running our reinsurance businesses. And they understand the marketplace and have it very clear when it makes sense to be dialing it up and when it makes sense to be dialing it down. Maybe dig a little deeper on the reinsurance front. You know, property cat market, which gets a lot of the headlines from my perspective, and I believe it's the view of others. You know, clearly, that has peaked, again, barring the unforeseen event, though there's still healthy margin in that business. The big question is what tomorrow will bring. And if it's benign, how quickly that marketplace will erode. On the other hand, the liability market, I think the reinsurance marketplace, generally speaking, was late to recognizing this whole social inflation phenomenon and what that means. And I think that you're gonna see the attention of the broader reinsurance marketplace pivoting more and more towards the liability lines. And the discipline is gonna be more focused on that. And perhaps they'll be taking the foot a little bit off the property and property cat pedal. How about workers' comp? You've been vocal on the trends there with workers' comp severity, at least the potential for it. You know, what trends are you seeing, for that product line? Look, from our perspective, it's hard to imagine that frequency trend will continue to be as negative as it's been. In addition to that, state rating bureaus across the country have, year after year, taken some very aggressive action as it comes to rates, and it's not to suggest that the data doesn't support it, but I think it's becoming clearly a more fragile situation. In addition to that, we have some questions about medical trend and whether you're going to see a tick up in medical costs, particularly impacting severity. I would draw people's attention. Well, I should make mention of one other comment. Much of the country's comp schedules are priced off of Medicare. We all know that Medicare is an economic loser. It's essentially the federal government transitioning an expense that sits on its, it sits with them, and moving it over to the private sector and transferring it to providers. Workers' comp, by and large, prices their product as a percentage relative to Medicare, and so why do I draw our attention to it? I think the base that comp is being priced off of when it comes to medical, I think, is wobbly at best, and as a data point, if you look to the state of Florida, within the last 12 months, they have made meaningful adjustments to the multiple they are of Medicare, so I think comp is the insurance industry, it always takes longer than you think it should, and when it's good, it's usually better than you think. And when it's bad, it's usually worse. And I think you're gonna see comp continue to erode for another 12 months-24 months. And we have a long history as an industry of learning the hard way. So we'll have to see if it ends in tears or not. How about from a macroeconomic perspective? Kind of a broad question, but anything that's of particular focus for you as you head into 2025? For us as an organization, obviously, we're very focused on maximizing the opportunity. We have clarity as to who we are and what we do. We have zero interest in trying to be all things to all people. We have great focus on making sure we deploy the capital in a sensible way. I think the organization is particularly well-positioned for markets in transition. I think that there's a lot of evidence that the liability market is going to continue to struggle. That is going to play very much into our hand. In addition to that, what we haven't spent much time focusing on would be the investment portfolio. From our perspective, there's meaningful upside for us there as well. You know, it doesn't take great insight. It's pretty simple math. Our book yield today for our domestic portfolio, which is the lion's share of what we have, is about 4.5%. Our new money rate today is something north of 5%. So you can just extrapolate from there and see where it's going. Certainly, there's a lot of discussion around the Fed and what they're gonna do. But I think, as we all know, the Fed has control over the short end, at best influence over the long end. And from our perspective, when you look at the spending in this country and the deficits that we run and the debt, regardless of the commentary around government becoming more efficient, we think that we're gonna continue to see that deficit grow. And there's also the question as to who's gonna be buying the debt. From our perspective, historically, some of the biggest buyers, that being both China and Japan, clearly do not have the same appetite they once had. So what's the point? The point is we certainly don't see intermediate and longer-term rates coming down and, if anything, going up, and that is gonna play well, particularly into an organization that is weighted towards liability and what that means for the amount of investable assets we have. How about on the expense ratio side of the equation? The firm has made a significant improvement over a five to 10-year period. Are there ways Berkley can get more efficient, and continue to improve through scale, or is high 20s the right range? I think we're very focused on making sure that it starts with a two. Without a doubt, we, as an organization, continue to look in the mirror through a magnifying glass, looking for opportunities. We talk about examining our business and challenging ourselves as to can we automate it? If not, is it something that we can use a BPO solution for? And then whatever is left over, arguably, should be the secret sauce. I think the other piece that when you unpack an expense ratio, which gets some attention but perhaps not as much as it deserves, is acquisition cost, and the question will be, over time, are we going to see a shift in how our product is bought? You know, in our mind, we, as an organization, have every intention of becoming ever more distribution-agnostic, meaning that our focus, our desire, is to meet customers wherever they wanna be met, whether that's wholesale, retail, affinity, direct. Perhaps, over time, there will be opportunity on that front as well. We remain very committed to traditional distribution. From our opinion, ultimately, the customer is in charge. We are, again, gonna meet with them where they wish to be met. How is Berkley thinking about competition for both talent and premiums from sort of the increasing proliferation of MGAs in the market? Look, when the day's all done, the MGA model, I think, is an interesting one. That having been said, one needs to recognize the lack of alignment between the MGA and the capital. MGAs make their money based on, by and large, commissions. They win as long as they're selling. The capital, obviously, that's a different mindset. We worry about the underwriting outcome, among other things. So I think this surge in business going from the standard market to the specialty market, and in some cases, the E&S market, has naturally played into the MGA/MGU universe. I think that a lot of the capacity they have has come from the reinsurance marketplace in particular. And I think if you look back over history, that point that I was attempting to make a few moments ago around the lack of alignment of interest, oftentimes not always, but oftentimes, the MGUs and that lack of alignment of interest has ended in tears for the capital. So we do do some business with MGUs, but we understand the model. We understand the lack of alignment. And we take the appropriate steps to control the business. Got it. Last question for you as we're almost running out of time here. But I wanted to ask you if you think there are any impacts to W. R. B. from sort of increasing insurance broker consolidation? It's certainly something that we pay attention to. Obviously, there's been a huge amount of consolidation. A lot of it has been among the 800 lbs gorillas, if you will. Some of it has been among some of the smaller organizations. When the day's all done, we don't have big concentrations with most points of distribution. And we don't, generally speaking, do business with firms. Rather, we do business with individual brokers. So, it's something that we pay attention to. It's less troubling to us as an organization for the reasons I referenced. That having been said, I think that when the day's all done, choice is an important thing for consumers. And it is possible, at some point in the future, the lack of choice will be something that is not in the best interest of consumers. Furthermore, it's possible, at some point, you could have government taking an interest in the subject. I think the bigger challenge, ultimately, for the industry overall, carrier and distribution, is value proposition. I think we, as an organization, have chosen to focus on the specialty lines for a whole host of reasons, including, it is easier to build a value proposition around expertise. I think for those in the more lines that are more of a commodity, that's a greater challenge. On the distribution side of the business, I think that there's a challenge to demonstrate what is the value proposition beyond access because there is a lot of frictional cost in the industry for access. Awesome. We'll leave it at that. Thanks so much for being here with us, Rob. Thanks, Rob. Good to be with you. Thank you.