丘博保險集團 (CB) 2026 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Thank you for standing by. My name is J-L, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Chubb Limited first-quarter 2026 earnings call. (Operator Instructions)

感謝各位稍候。我叫 J-L，今天將擔任本次電話會議的接線員。此刻，我謹代表公司歡迎各位參加 Chubb Limited 2026 年第一季財報電話會議。（接線員指示）

I would now like to turn the conference over to Susan Spivak, Senior Vice President, Investor Relations. You may begin.

現在我想將會議交給投資人關係資深副總裁 Susan Spivak。您可以開始。

Thank you, and welcome to our March 31, 2026 First Quarter Earnings Conference Call.

謝謝，歡迎各位參加我們截至 2026 年 3 月 31 日的第一季財報電話會議。

Our report today will contain forward-looking statements, including statements relating to the company performance, pricing and business mix, growth opportunities and economic and market conditions, which are subject to risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially. See our recent SEC filings, earnings release and financial supplement, which are all available on our website at investors.chubb.com for more information on factors that could affect these matters.

我們今天的報告將包含前瞻性陳述，包括與公司表現、定價與業務組合、成長機會以及經濟與市場狀況相關的陳述；這些陳述受風險與不確定性影響，實際結果可能出現重大差異。更多可能影響相關事項之因素，請參閱我們近期向 SEC 提交的文件、財報新聞稿與財務補充資料，以上皆可於我們網站 investors.chubb.com 查閱。

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 release and financial supplement.

我們今天也將提及非 GAAP 財務衡量指標；其與最直接可比之 GAAP 指標的調節表及相關細節，已載於我們的財報新聞稿與財務補充資料中。

Now I'd like to introduce our speakers. First, we have Evan Greenberg, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, followed by Peter Enns, our Chief Financial Officer. Then, we'll take your questions. Also with us to assist with your questions are several members of our management team. And now, it's my pleasure to turn the call over to Evan.

接下來我想介紹今天的講者。首先是董事長兼執行長 Evan Greenberg，接著是財務長 Peter Enns。之後我們將進入問答環節。此外，亦有多位管理團隊成員在場協助回覆各位提問。現在，很高興將電話會議交給 Evan。

Good morning. We had an excellent quarter and start to the year. Our results speak to the strength and resilience of our company in a period of elevated uncertainty. They also speak to our globally diversified business opportunities, on the one hand, and our disciplined approach underwriting, on the other.

各位早安。我們本季表現非常出色，為今年開了個好頭。我們的結果反映出在高度不確定的時期，公司所具備的實力與韌性；同時也反映出，一方面我們在全球多元分散的業務機會，另一方面我們在核保上的紀律作風。

I want to first start with a few words about the external environment. War in the Middle East raises the specter, globally, of higher inflation and potentially slower economic growth. To what degree, the timing and the pattern are all unknowable at this time. However, the impact of the war adds a degree of pressure to certain financial, fiscal and economic stresses: such as underlying inflation, fiscal deficits and sovereign debt, global supply chains, and financial valuations, including equity and credit, and a growing energy shortage to name a few.

我先談幾句外部環境。中東戰事在全球層面提高了通膨上行、以及經濟成長可能放緩的疑慮。其影響程度、時間點與走勢目前都無從得知。然而，戰事的衝擊使某些金融、財政與經濟壓力更為加劇：例如基礎通膨、財政赤字與主權債務、全球供應鏈、金融資產估值（包括股票與信用市場），以及日益擴大的能源短缺等。

In times of stress, I like Chubb's position, given the strength of our balance sheet, earning power and liquidity.

在壓力時期，考量到我們資產負債表的強度、獲利能力與流動性，我很看好 Chubb 的定位。

Now turning to our results, strong growth in P&C underwriting, investment and life income led to core operating earnings of $2.7 billion or $6.82 per share, both up substantially over the prior year first quarter, which was of course impacted by the California wildfires. Adjusting for this, and so excluding CAT losses, core operating income was up 10.7% and EPS was up 13.5%. And most important, tangible book value per share grew 21.5%.

回到我們的業績表現，強勁的產險（P&C）核保成長、投資收益與壽險收入，帶動核心營運盈餘達 27 億美元、每股 6.82 美元，兩者均較去年第一季大幅成長；而去年第一季當然受到加州野火影響。若就此調整、亦即排除巨災（CAT）損失，核心營運收入成長 10.7%，每股盈餘成長 13.5%。最重要的是，每股有形帳面價值成長 21.5%。

Total company net premiums grew 10.7% for the quarter to more than $14 billion. P&C premiums grew 7.2% and Life grew more than 33%. Both benefited from foreign exchange.

本季全公司淨保費總額成長 10.7%，至超過 140 億美元。產險保費成長 7.2%，壽險成長逾 33%。兩者皆受惠於匯率因素。

Our underwriting performance in the quarter was excellent. P&C underwriting income was $1.8 billion with a combined ratio of 84%. And on a current accident year basis excluding CATs, underwriting income grew 9.8%, with a combined ratio of 82.1%.

我們本季的核保表現非常優異。產險核保利益為 18 億美元，綜合率為 84%。以當期事故年度口徑、並排除巨災計算，核保利益成長 9.8%，綜合率為 82.1%。

On the investment side of our business, adjusted net investment income of $1.8 billion was up more than 10%. Our fixed income portfolio yield was 5.1%, and our current new money rate average was 5.5% as of March 31. Our invested asset now stands at $170 billion, up from $152 billion a year ago.

在投資業務方面，調整後淨投資收益為 18 億美元，成長逾 10%。我們固定收益投資組合殖利率為 5.1%，截至 3 月 31 日，當期新增資金平均利率為 5.5%。我們的投資資產目前為 1,700 億美元，高於一年前的 1,520 億美元。

Again, these results, top and bottom line, put a point on the broad-based, diversified nature of the company by geography and product, by both commercial and consumer customer segment, and by distribution channel.

再次強調，這些自上而下的成果凸顯公司在地域與產品上的廣泛分散、多元化特性，涵蓋商業與消費者客群，以及不同的通路。

Our annualized core operating return on tangible equity was 20.6%, and our core operating ROE was 14%. Peter is going to have more to say about financial items.

我們年化核心營運有形股東權益報酬率為 20.6%，核心營運 ROE 為 14%。Peter 將就財務項目補充更多。

Turning to growth, pricing, and the rate environment, P&C premiums grew 7.2% with consumer up 14.2% and commercial up 4.6%. Overseas General grew 14.4%, or 6.1% in constant dollars. Total North America was up 4.1% or 7.8%, excluding large account property, both admitted and E&S, which we purposely shrank given what we judge to be inadequate pricing levels. In a number of important markets, property and financial lines pricing conditions are soft, with property pricing in those markets softening at a pace that, frankly, I'll only describe as dumb.

談到成長、定價與費率環境，產險保費成長 7.2%，其中消費者業務成長 14.2%，商業業務成長 4.6%。海外一般保險（Overseas General）成長 14.4%，以固定匯率計為 6.1%。北美合計成長 4.1%；若排除大型帳戶財產險（含認可市場 admitted 與 E&S），則為 7.8%。我們刻意縮減該業務，因為我們判斷其定價水準不足。在若干重要市場，財產險與金融險的定價環境偏軟，其中財產險在這些市場的價格走軟速度，坦白說，我只能形容為「愚蠢」。

With that, as a baseline, I'll give you some more color on the quarter by division and region. I'm going to begin, as I did last quarter, with our international P&C business.

以此作為基準，我將按事業部與地區提供本季更多細節。我將如同上季一樣，先從我們的國際產險業務談起。

Premiums in our international retail business, which operates in 51 countries and is 90% of Overseas General were up more than 15%. Consumer-related premiums, both A&H and personal lines, were up over 20% with commercial lines up over 11%. Europe grew 17.5%, with consumer and commercial both up double digit. Asia grew more than 12%, and Latin America grew almost 18%.

我們的國際零售業務在 51 個國家營運，且占海外一般保險的 90%；其保費成長逾 15%。與消費者相關的保費（包括意外與健康險 A&H 及個人險）成長超過 20%，商業險成長超過 11%。歐洲成長 17.5%，消費者與商業業務皆為雙位數成長。亞洲成長逾 12%，拉丁美洲成長近 18%。

In our international retail commercial business, P&C rates were down 2.5% and financial lines rates were down 7.4%. Our selected loss cost trends in our international retail business was 3.7%, or 130 basis points lower than 2025.

在我們的國際零售商業業務中，產險費率下滑 2.5%，金融險費率下滑 7.4%。我們在國際零售業務所選取的損失成本趨勢為 3.7%，較 2025 年低 130 個基點。

In our London wholesale business, the market has become highly competitive, particularly, but not only, in property, and we purposely shrank our open market property business. Premiums in our London wholesale business, which is 10% of international P&C were up almost 8%.

在我們的倫敦批發業務中，市場競爭已變得非常激烈，尤其（但不僅限於）財產險，因此我們刻意縮減公開市場的財產險業務。我們的倫敦批發業務占國際產險的 10%，其保費成長近 8%。

Turning to North America, total premiums, again, grew 4.1%, including 8.3% growth in personal lines and 2.8% in commercial. Excluding large account property, both admitted and E&S, and that's shared and layered property, total North America commercial premiums rose 7.7%, a very good underlying result.

轉到北美，總保費如前所述成長 4.1%，其中個人險成長 8.3%，商業險成長 2.8%。若排除大型帳戶財產險（含認可市場 admitted 與 E&S），亦即共享與分層（shared and layered）財產險，北美商業險保費合計成長 7.7%，基礎表現非常好。

Breaking it down further, premiums in Major Accounts & Specialty, or E&S grew 1.5%, or 10.9%, excluding shared and layered property, which, again, we shrank. Growth was driven by a broad range of our casualty, marine, surety and risk management businesses.

進一步拆解來看，大型帳戶與專業險（Major Accounts & Specialty），亦即 E&S 的保費成長 1.5%；若排除我們同樣縮減的共享與分層財產險，則成長 10.9%。成長動能來自我們責任險、海上保險、保證保險（surety）與風險管理等多元業務。

Premiums in middle market and small grew 3.3%, with P&C lines up almost 5.5% and financial lines down 5.7%, or flat when adjusting for the impact of additional reinsurance we chose to purchase. In North America, pricing for commercial property and casualty, excluding fin lines and comp was up 4.6%, with rates up 2.2% and exposure change of 2.3%. Property pricing was down 2.6%, with rates down 6.3% and exposure up 4%. However, going a step further, property pricing was down 14.3%, in shared and layered Major and Specialty, for the business we wrote. Market pricing for the business we gave up or passed on was down between 30% and 40%. The larger the premium, the greater the price discount. On the other hand, in middle market and small commercial, property pricing was up 1.5%.

中型市場與小型企業保費成長 3.3%，其中產險線別成長近 5.5%，金融險線別下滑 5.7%；若調整我們選擇額外購買再保險的影響，則約為持平。在北美，商業財產與責任險（不含金融險與工傷補償）定價上升 4.6%，其中費率上升 2.2%，曝險變動 2.3%。財產險定價下滑 2.6%，其中費率下滑 6.3%，曝險上升 4%。然而再往下看，在我們承作的共享與分層大型與專業險中，財產險定價下滑 14.3%。我們放棄或未承作的業務，其市場定價下滑介於 30% 至 40%。保費規模越大，價格折讓越大。另一方面，在中型市場與小型商業業務中，財產險定價上升 1.5%。

Casualty pricing in North America was up 9.6%, with rates up 8.4% and exposure up 1.1%. Work comp pricing was up 4.3%, and fin lines pricing was about flat.

北美責任險定價上升 9.6%，其中費率上升 8.4%，曝險上升 1.1%。工傷補償定價上升 4.3%，金融險定價大致持平。

Our overall selected loss cost trend in North America commercial was little changed, with no change in casualty at other long-tail lines.

我們在北美商業業務整體所選取的損失成本趨勢變化不大；責任險及其他長尾線別亦無變化。

On the consumer side of North America, our high-net-worth personal lines business had a very good quarter with premium growth of 8.3% and renewal retention on an account basis of 92%. Homeowners pricing was up 7.7% in the quarter.

在北美的消費者業務方面，我們的高淨值個人險業務本季表現非常好，保費成長 8.3%，以帳戶為基礎的續保留存率為 92%。本季住宅保險（Homeowners）定價上升 7.7%。

In our international life insurance business, premiums rose 37%. Premiums in North America Chubb Worksite Benefits business were up almost 16%. Our life division produced $316 million of pre-tax income in the quarter, up 8.5%, and adjusted for a few one-time items that benefited last year's first quarter, life was up 11.5%.

在我們的國際壽險業務中，保費上升 37%。北美 Chubb Worksite Benefits 業務保費成長近 16%。本季壽險事業部稅前收益為 3.16 億美元，成長 8.5%；若調整去年第一季受惠的幾項一次性因素，壽險收益成長 11.5%。

In sum, we're off to a very good start in '26. And we had an excellent first quarter. From a macro perspective, over time, difficult environments generally advantage strong companies over weaker ones. Chubb's diversification, market-leading presence and capabilities, and operating discipline provide us with resilience when the macro environment is uncertain.

總而言之，我們在「26 年」有一個非常好的開局，而且第一季表現極佳。從總體角度來看，隨著時間推移，艱困的環境通常會讓強者相對於弱者更具優勢。Chubb 的多元化、領先市場的布局與能力，以及營運紀律，使我們在總體環境不確定時仍具韌性。

We are patient and have many sources of opportunity on both the liability and the asset side of the balance sheet. From what I can see, CATs etc. aside, I remain confident and our ability to continue generating strong growth in operating earnings, and double-digit growth in EPS and, most important, tangible book value.

我們保持耐心，在資產負債表的負債端與資產端都有許多機會來源。就我所見，撇開巨災（CAT）等因素不談，我仍然有信心，我們有能力持續帶動營運盈餘的強勁成長、每股盈餘（EPS）的雙位數成長，以及最重要的，有形帳面價值的雙位數成長。

I'll turn the call over to Peter, and then we're going to come back and take your questions.

我把電話會議交給 Peter，之後我們會回來回答各位的問題。

Thank you, Evan. Our first quarter results were strong, and we concluded March in an excellent financial position, supported by balance sheet strength and liquidity, including record cash and invested assets of nearly $173 billion and $3.8 billion of adjusted operating cash flow.

謝謝你，Evan。我們第一季的業績強勁，並在 3 月底以極佳的財務狀況作結，這得益於資產負債表的強度與流動性，包括創紀錄、接近 1,730 億美元的現金與投資資產，以及 38 億美元的調整後營運現金流。

During the quarter we issued 200 million Swiss francs or approximately $250 million U.S. dollars, of 6-year debt at a very attractive cost of 1%. We returned $1.5 billion of capital to shareholders, including $1.1 billion in share repurchases at an average price of $325.06 per share and $380 million in dividends. We ended the period with an all-time high in book value of nearly $74 billion or $189.93 per share

本季我們以非常具吸引力的 1% 成本，發行了 2 億瑞士法郎（約 2.5 億美元）的 6 年期債務。我們向股東返還了 15 億美元資本，其中包括以每股平均 325.06 美元回購 11 億美元股票，以及 3.8 億美元股利。我們期末帳面價值創歷史新高，接近 740 億美元，或每股 189.93 美元。

Book and tangible book value per share, excluding AOCI, grew 12.1% and 16.5% from last year.

每股帳面價值與每股有形帳面價值（不含 AOCI）分別較去年成長 12.1% 與 16.5%。

Our core operating return on tangible equity and core operating ROE in the quarter were 20.6% and 14%.

本季核心營運有形股東權益報酬率與核心營運 ROE 分別為 20.6% 與 14%。

Pre-tax catastrophe losses were $500 million for the quarter, principally from weather-related events split 87% U.S. and 13% international.

本季稅前巨災損失為 5 億美元，主要來自與天氣相關的事件，其中 87% 來自美國、13% 來自國際。

Pre-tax prior period development in the quarter in our active companies was favorable $301 million, comprising $322 million of favorable development in short-tail lines and $21 million of unfavorable development in long tail-lines. Our corporate runoff portfolio had adverse development of $15 million.

本季我們在持續經營公司（active companies）的稅前前期年度準備金發展為有利的 3.01 億美元，其中短尾險種有利發展 3.22 億美元，長尾險種不利發展 2,100 萬美元。我們的公司級停辦（runoff）投資組合則出現 1,500 萬美元的不利發展。

Our paid-to-incurred ratio for the quarter was 87%, and our net loss reserves increased to nearly $69 billion, representing growth of 5% from first quarter last year.

本季的已付對已發生比率（paid-to-incurred ratio）為 87%，淨損失準備金增加至接近 690 億美元，較去年第一季成長 5%。

Turning to our investments, our A-rated portfolio increased about $1.5 billion from strong operating cash flow and positive foreign exchange gains partially offset by $1.6 billion of net unrealized losses from an increase in interest rates and widening of credit spreads.

談到投資方面，我們的 A 級評等投資組合因強勁的營運現金流與正向外匯收益而增加約 15 億美元，但部分被因利率上升與信用利差擴大所造成的 16 億美元淨未實現損失所抵銷。

Adjusted net investment income of $1.84 billion was at the top end of our previously guided range, primarily due to the increase in our invested asset base and stronger private equity returns. We expect adjusted net investment income in the second quarter to be between $1.825 billion to $1.85 billion.

調整後淨投資收益為 18.4 億美元，位於我們先前指引區間的上緣，主要受投資資產基礎擴大以及私募股權報酬較強所帶動。我們預期第二季調整後淨投資收益介於 18.25 億至 18.5 億美元。

Our core operating effective tax rate of 19.3% for the quarter, which was slightly below our previously guided range primarily due to compensation-related equity awards, which vested in the first quarter. We continue to expect core operating effective tax rate for the full year to be in the range of 19.5% to 20%.

本季核心營運有效稅率為 19.3%，略低於我們先前指引區間，主要因與薪酬相關的股權獎勵在第一季歸屬（vested）。我們仍預期全年核心營運有效稅率將落在 19.5% 至 20% 的區間。

I'll now turn the call back over to Susan.

我現在把電話會議交回給 Susan。

Thank you, Peter. At this point, we're happy to take your questions.

謝謝你，Peter。接下來我們很樂意回答各位的問題。

(Operator Instructions)

（接線員指示）

Bob Huang, Morgan Stanley.

Bob Huang，Morgan Stanley。

Hi, good morning. My first question is on the geopolitical commentaries you had in your opening remarks. Can you maybe help us unpack this concept a little bit? Just -- we're hearing inflationary concerns out of Asia, out of parts of Europe due to the conflict in Iran. Do you see that at some point in time affect pricing expectations in the U.S. market if the conflict kind of drags on longer than expected? Just curious your thoughts on that.

嗨，早安。我第一個問題是關於你在開場談話中提到的地緣政治評論。你能否幫我們把這個概念再拆解一下？我們聽到因伊朗衝突，亞洲以及歐洲部分地區出現通膨疑慮。若衝突拖得比預期更久，你是否認為這在某個時間點會影響美國市場的定價預期？想聽聽你的看法。

As I said, the degree, the pattern, the timing is unknowable. However, global supply chains depend substantially, you mentioned Asia, in the U.S., we depend on supply chain through Asia. We depend on supply chain through Mexico and other parts of the world. The impact of the Gulf on supply chain availability of commodities and other inputs and the impact to shipping, of course, is going to have an inflationary impact.

如我所說，其程度、型態與時間點都無從得知。然而，全球供應鏈在很大程度上依賴——你提到亞洲——在美國，我們依賴經由亞洲的供應鏈。我們也依賴經由墨西哥及世界其他地區的供應鏈。波斯灣對大宗商品與其他投入品供應可得性的影響，以及對航運的影響，當然會帶來通膨效應。

How that passes through to inflation in the U.S., the degree of it and where it actually shows up is not really knowable at this time. But it isn't going to be 0. That's for sure. And how transient it is, is unknowable also. Longer it goes on, stickier it will be. That's sort of the mental model I have. How it will pass through on insurance, I don't know. I'm not -- it's not something that I'm really wringing my hands about and I'm concerned about. It will likely be short-term transient. We'll see what it is when it shows up, and we will respond to it accordingly.

這會如何傳導到美國通膨、程度多大、實際會在哪裡顯現，目前都很難判斷。但可以確定不會是 0。至於它有多短暫，也同樣無從得知。拖得越久，就會越黏著（更難消退）。這是我心中的思考模型。至於它會如何傳導到保險，我不知道。我並不是——這不是我真正焦慮、擔心的事情。它很可能是短期、暫時性的。我們會在它出現時再看情況，並據此做出回應。

Got it. Really appreciate the thoughts. My second question is on the small market E&S business and AI. So when we think about Chubb's small market E&S business, that has grown fairly well over the past. And as we think about you deploying more AI capabilities either maybe through distribution or just internal capabilities on underwriting. Can you maybe help us to think about the growth trajectory over the next five years. Is it fair to say the E&S market for you, specifically the smaller end of that can grow multiple times bigger in five years' time? Is that the right way to think about it?

了解。非常感謝你的想法。我的第二個問題是關於小型市場的 E&S 業務與 AI。當我們看 Chubb 的小型市場 E&S 業務，過去成長相當不錯。隨著你們部署更多 AI 能力，可能透過通路或僅在核保內部能力上，你能否幫我們思考未來五年的成長軌跡？是否可以說，對你們而言，E&S 市場——特別是其中較小端——在五年後可以成長到數倍規模？這樣理解對嗎？

I think about it a little differently. I think about the small commercial market, retail, and E&S. And I actually think the greater opportunity for growth is in the vast retail end of it versus the E&S. But it's both. And what we have done to transform that business and what we're continuing to do to transform it including with the use of AI and now with what's in front of us with agentics within AI, and evolving large language model capabilities and enterprise software that emerges from that as well.

我的看法稍有不同。我會把它放在小型商業市場、零售端，以及 E&S 一起看。而我其實認為，更大的成長機會在於龐大的零售端，而不是 E&S。但兩者都有機會。我們已經做了很多來改造這項業務，並且仍在持續改造，包括運用 AI；而且現在，隨著 AI 中的 agentics（代理式能力）、不斷演進的大型語言模型能力，以及由此衍生的企業軟體也逐步出現。

Yes, it is a real growth area for our company over the next five years. And by the way, not simply North America, we expect significant growth in various markets internationally that may ultimately dwarf North America.

是的，這將是我們公司未來五年的一個真正成長領域。順帶一提，不僅是北美，我們預期在國際上各個市場也會有顯著成長，最終規模可能會超越北美。

Mike Zaremski, BMO Capital Markets.

Mike Zaremski，BMO Capital Markets。

Hi, thanks, good morning. Question regarding some of your commentary around the pricing cycle, specifically in the larger account marketplaces where you called out pricing power is declining, I think, more than you feel makes sense to Chubb.

嗨，謝謝，早安。問題是關於你對定價循環的一些評論，特別是在大型帳戶市場，你提到定價能力正在下降，我想你認為其下降幅度對 Chubb 來說超出合理範圍。

You also called out kind of the London specialty market is getting more competitive. Curious, you've been through lots of -- you and your team have been through lots of cycles. What's causing the competition this time? Is it just simply what you've seen before, and folks are getting excited about increasing their top line growth in a softening marketplace? Or is there some other causes this time that you want to call out?

你也提到倫敦專業險市場正變得更具競爭性。好奇的是，你和你的團隊經歷過很多——很多個循環。這次競爭加劇的原因是什麼？是否只是你以前見過的情況：在市場走軟時，大家對提升營收成長（top line growth）感到興奮？還是這次有其他原因值得你特別指出？

Yeah. Thank you. And let's step back and put a perspective on it too. The market rates, so I gave you, Chubb, I gave you what we lost business for. If I sort of step back and look at overall market rate in shared and layered in North America and in London, pricing overall is off 25% in the quarter, heading to 30%. It's -- you can actually see it's accelerating in that trend.

是的，謝謝。我們也退一步把它放在更大的脈絡來看。市場費率方面，我給了你 Chubb 的情況——我也告訴你我們因為什麼而流失業務。如果我退一步看北美與倫敦的 shared 與 layered 整體市場費率，本季整體定價下滑 25%，並正朝 30% 走。你其實可以看到這個趨勢正在加速。

It's -- and by the way, loss cost, to put a point on it, loss cost, they're moving at about 4% to 5% in shared and layered property. So you can work out the math there. It's always supply-demand. So it's -- the amount of supply, which is capital, that is chasing a relatively finite amount of business. And by the way, in a concentrated way, if it's E&S and it's London or it's in the United States, it's boxed up and brought to underwriters. You can access it. It's not like retail business generally.

而且——順帶一提，為了更具體一點，損失成本（loss cost）在 shared 與 layered 的財產險大約以 4% 到 5% 的速度變動。你可以自己算一下這裡的數學。這永遠是供需問題。也就是供給——也就是資本——在追逐相對有限的業務量。而且順帶一提，這種追逐是以集中的方式發生：不論是 E&S、倫敦，或美國，業務被打包後交到核保人手上；你可以取得它。它不像一般的零售業務那樣分散。

You can -- and it's urban-based. It doesn't take a lot of capability. It takes some balance sheet capital and a couple of underwriters. And you're in the market. So it's a hunger that way, the difference -- and I wrote about it in the shareholder letter, so you can read that. I won't repeat it all. This structural difference this time is simply how the capital is showing up. And it's showing up a lot of it in a volume-based incentive system, MGAs. The majority of them, it's just volume based. What do they bring? They bring a cheaper price and a higher commission. And it's the reinsurance market, and it's alternative capital. And the number of bites of the apple in the supply chain by -- taken by intermediation. That is what you are reflecting here. And by the way, the loser at the end of the day is the ultimate risk taker who puts up the capital, and this is short-tail business. The report card comes home rather quickly, so stay tuned.

你可以——而且它是以都市為基礎的。它不需要很強的能力。它需要一些資產負債表資本和幾位核保人。然後你就進入市場了。所以從這個角度來看，這是一種飢渴；差異——我在致股東信裡寫過，所以你可以去讀。我就不把全部內容重複一遍。這一次的結構性差異，純粹在於資本是如何出現的。而且其中很大一部分，是以量為基礎的激勵制度出現的，也就是 MGA。它們大多數就是以量為基礎。它們帶來什麼？它們帶來更便宜的價格和更高的佣金。然後是再保險市場，以及替代資本。以及供應鏈中被中介拿走的『咬一口蘋果』的次數。這就是你在這裡反映的情況。順帶一提，最後的輸家是最終承擔風險、拿出資本的人，而這是短尾業務。成績單很快就會寄回家，所以敬請期待。

That's helpful. And my follow-up is just on Chubb's digital transformation. You gave us an update back in December, but you've been talking about digital transformation for many, many years, probably much longer than peers.

這很有幫助。我的追問是關於 Chubb 的數位轉型。你在 12 月給過我們一次更新，但你談數位轉型已經很多很多年了，可能比同業早得多、也久得多。

Just curious, is there -- has your views changed in recent months given advances in technology on the kind of the pace of the cadence of the digital transformation, front-end loaded, back-end loaded or just pro rata over time? And also just do you feel that your digital transformation goals since they're longer term could change fairly materially over time given the pace of change in technology? Thanks.

我只是好奇，鑑於科技的進步，你近幾個月的看法是否有改變——例如數位轉型的速度與節奏，是前端先行、後端先行，還是隨時間按比例推進？另外，你是否覺得你們的數位轉型目標因為是長期的，會不會隨著科技變化的速度而在時間推移中出現相當重大的改變？謝謝。

I haven't changed my view of our goals in the last three months, and it is steady, and we are executing and we are on track. The technology is evolving at a rapid pace. And the most interesting in the last number of months that will, frankly, is still emerging. There's a lot of talk about it, but how it actually operationalizes is the notion of what agentics now really brings. And the notion of enterprise solutions that some of the developers of frontier large language models are working to actually monetize all that they've spent in development.

在過去三個月裡，我對我們目標的看法沒有改變；它是穩定的，我們正在執行，而且進度如期。科技正以很快的速度演進。而在過去幾個月裡最有意思、坦白說仍在浮現的，是現在所謂 agentics 真正帶來的是什麼。以及一些前沿大型語言模型的開發者正在推動的企業級解決方案概念，試圖把他們在研發上投入的成本實際變現。

And I think those trends as they emerge, will only accelerate, improve, lower cost, make it easier. So I'll stop right there. It's -- it's an exciting time. And you have to spend and I spend much more time on this subject than I did even two years ago or a year ago. You need to have knowledge. You can't just be listening to others. You got to have firsthand knowledge. And otherwise, you yourself start to become irrelevant. So as a leader, all that's on my mind.

我認為這些趨勢一旦逐步成形，只會加速、改善、降低成本、讓事情更容易。所以我就先說到這裡。這——這是一個令人興奮的時代。你必須投入時間，而我在這個主題上花的時間，比兩年前甚至一年前都多得多。你需要有知識。你不能只是聽別人說。你得有第一手的了解。否則，你自己就會開始變得不再相關。作為領導者，這些就是我腦子裡想的事。

Gregory Peters, Raymond James.

Raymond James 的 Gregory Peters。

Well, good morning, everyone. So I'm going to ask a follow-up question to the -- some of your comments you just made. And some of your shareholders have reached out to me. And specifically, there's so much news in the marketplace about the rapid evolution of technology, specifically the new piece of information we're all processing is the Anthropic’s Mythos.

各位早安。我想針對你剛才的一些評論追問一下。有些股東也有聯繫我。具體來說，市場上有很多關於科技快速演進的新聞，而我們目前都在消化的一個新資訊是 Anthropic 的 Mythos。

And I'm just curious how you view this type of technology and its risks to like the cyber insurance market, how you think it might affect contingent business interruption. And then these tech companies are rolling out this technology. And if it causes problems, I'm sure they're going to face some liability costs. So just trying to come at it from a slightly different angle, but anyways, your views would be appreciated.

我很好奇你如何看待這類技術，以及它對網路保險市場的風險；你認為它可能如何影響或有助於理解「或有營業中斷」（contingent business interruption）。另外，這些科技公司正在推出這項技術；如果它造成問題，我相信它們會面臨一些責任成本。所以我只是想從稍微不同的角度切入，不過無論如何，都很希望聽聽你的看法。

Sure, Greg. And that's not a slightly different angle. That's a different angle, and it's the right question. First, just on Mythos and it's the notion of finding vulnerabilities and we've redefined vulnerabilities, the threshold for vulnerability has been lowered. What were minor vulnerabilities can now be aggregated in a much more insightful way.

當然可以，Greg。而那不是稍微不同的角度。那是不同的角度，而且是對的問題。首先談 Mythos：它的概念是找出弱點，而我們也重新定義了弱點——弱點的門檻被降低了。過去屬於小問題的弱點，現在可以用更有洞察力的方式加以彙整。

Anthropic is a code generator. So it can read code. So it's -- it shouldn't be shocking that since it can read code, look at another use that has emerged. And then there are others, think Gemini's models. And the company's business model, they go and they do searches for information. That means they know systems, computers. They know how to access, the system does.

Anthropic 是一個程式碼生成器。所以它能讀程式碼。因此——既然它能讀程式碼，看到另一種已經出現的用途也不該令人震驚。還有其他的，例如 Gemini 的模型。這些公司的商業模式是去搜尋資訊。那代表它們了解系統、電腦。它們知道如何存取——系統本身知道如何存取。

So frankly, it can look at code. Finding vulnerabilities in your -- right now, it's not just -- and just on level setting. It's not just that you can use this to find your own vulnerabilities. But many companies, most companies also use open source in their estates and so third party. And to the degree it's open source that way in the estate, you can find vulnerabilities, maybe even before suppliers do. Doesn't mean the patch has been created. So in a word, the arms race is on.

所以坦白說，它可以看程式碼。在你的——目前找弱點這件事，不只是——先把基準講清楚：不只是你可以用它來找出你自己的弱點。很多公司、甚至大多數公司，在其 IT 資產環境中也使用開源與第三方元件。而只要你的環境裡以這種方式使用了開源，你就可能找出弱點，甚至可能比供應商更早發現。這不代表修補程式已經被做出來。所以一句話：軍備競賽已經開始。

Now it is about hygiene and services to monitor and to support clients and identifying and fixing. And clearly, how diligent are you? Do you identify and patch? And imagine now the tools to patch are more automated and that automation is improving quickly. So you can patch faster. You can identify, you can patch if you choose to, see how faster speed. So that's the defense side of it, while we know the offense side is just around the corner.

現在重點在於衛生（hygiene）與監控、支援客戶的服務，以及辨識與修復。顯然，你有多勤勉？你是否能辨識並打補丁？而且想像一下，現在用來打補丁的工具更自動化，而這種自動化正在快速改善。所以你可以更快打補丁。你可以辨識，你也可以在你選擇的情況下打補丁——看到速度更快。這是防守面；而我們知道進攻面也近在眼前。

By the way, from what we can tell so far in AI, in cyber attacks using AI there really is only one instance we're aware of so far where it didn't involve a human. Other than that, humans are in the cockpit when they were using agentics so far. From an underwriter's point of view, obviously, policy conditions and pricing are on our minds. Large account will be much better at hygiene and have much stronger perimeters to get through, to penetrate than small companies. Small companies, on the other hand, are less targeted individually, but create more systemic concern.

順帶一提，就我們目前在 AI 方面所能判斷的，使用 AI 的網路攻擊到目前為止，我們只知道有一個案例是不涉及人類的。除此之外，到目前為止在使用 agentics 時，人類仍然在駕駛艙裡。從核保人的角度來看，保單條款與定價當然是我們關注的重點。大型客戶在衛生管理上會做得好得多，周邊防護也強得多，因此要突破、滲透會比小公司困難得多。另一方面，小公司個別而言較不容易成為目標，但會帶來更大的系統性疑慮。

And then finally, the biggest meat ball there is middle market companies. They're a target. They got more money, and they're less capable at hygiene and focus on it less and defense. And so all of that is on our -- and they have weaker perimeters. All that is on our minds as underwriters. And I give you all this, so you have a sense that we're thoughtful about this.

最後，最大的「肉丸」其實是中型市場公司。它們是目標。它們更有錢，但在衛生管理方面能力較弱、投入與防禦的專注度也較低。因此——它們的周邊防護也更弱。這些都是我們作為核保人所思考的事情。我把這些都告訴你，是讓你知道我們對此是有深入思考的。

Thank you. That's good detail. For my follow-up question, I'm going to -- I'm just going to focus on -- if you look at the P&C consolidated operations, you're generating in the first quarter an 84 combined ratio. You're on track to have a heck of a year. How do you think, broadly speaking, about the new business penalty, the fact that writing new business could be dilutive to that 84% combined ratio versus retention. So just walk us through your mental model on some of the points in that.

謝謝。細節很到位。我的追問是——我想聚焦在——如果你看產險（P&C）合併營運，你們第一季做出 84 的綜合率。你們看起來有望迎來非常好的一年。你如何從宏觀角度看待「新業務懲罰」（new business penalty）——也就是承作新業務可能會稀釋這個 84% 綜合率，相較於續保（retention）。請帶我們走一遍你在這方面的一些心智模型與思考重點。

Well, we run in our various businesses, call it, 85% and north of retention. Large account E&S, the property I talked about is where we're -- well, we shed half the volume. And by the way, that half the volume we shed, most of it was because we walked away. We also purchased additional reinsurance that impacted our premium growth and reduced our exposure. But we always have the new business, quote, unquote, penalty. So I don't see -- I'm thinking about what you're saying, and I don't really see much of an impact. I don't see any impact, frankly.

嗯，我們在各個業務線的續保率，大概是 85% 以上。大型帳戶的 E&S，以及我談到的財產險，是我們——嗯，我們把量砍掉了一半。順帶一提，我們砍掉的那一半量，大多是因為我們選擇退出。我們也額外購買了再保險，這影響了保費成長並降低了曝險。但我們一直都會有所謂的新業務「懲罰」。所以我不太——我在想你說的點，但我其實看不出有什麼影響。坦白說，我看不出任何影響。

And when I'm maintaining underwriting discipline in property, if anything, what I'm doing is ameliorating impacts to combined ratio in our minds because we're only shedding business that is woefully inadequately priced if we were to write it.

而且當我在財產險維持核保紀律時，如果有什麼影響，反而是在我們的認知中減輕對綜合率的衝擊，因為我們只是在剔除那些如果我們要承作、定價會嚴重不足的業務。

Thank you for your answers.

謝謝你的回答。

Meyer Shields, KBW.

KBW 的 Meyer Shields。

Great. Thank you, so much and good morning. I guess one modeling question to start with. Obviously, you called out the savings-oriented single premiums in life insurance in terms of written premiums. And we saw a similar, I guess, uptick in policy benefits. Does that stay elevated in future quarters also if the sales of these products normalize or go back what it was before?

很好。非常感謝，早安。我先從一個模型問題開始。很明顯，你特別提到壽險中以儲蓄為導向的一次繳（single premium）產品，在簽單保費（written premiums）上的影響。我們也看到保單給付（policy benefits）似乎有類似的上升。若這些產品的銷售在未來季度回到常態、或回到之前的水準，保單給付也會在未來季度維持在較高水準嗎？

Do you want to take that offline? Do you want to answer?

你想私下再談嗎？你想回答嗎？

Yeah, I'll just do it real quick. So the savings-oriented products, as you know, are more spread-based than underwriting margin based, and that's how you have to think about it. And so if you will, if we're selling elevated amounts of premium, there'll be a policy benefit that would match it. But over time, the margin comes through the investment product.

好，我很快回答。以儲蓄為導向的產品，如你所知，更多是以利差（spread）為基礎，而不是以核保利潤率為基礎，你必須用這種方式來思考。所以如果我們賣出較高額度的保費，相對應就會有匹配的保單給付。但隨著時間推移，利潤率會透過投資收益體現出來。

I don't -- just to understand, it's Asia. And first quarter in Asia, classically an agency business, very fast start. I don't expect to see this kind of growth continue in single premium business. Return on capital for it is brilliant. I'm not in love with the margin of it. But I'll tell you what, it's like mutual fund business, you write a lot of it, and you make some money. But I expect more of growth in regular premium on risk-based product as we go forward in the year.

我不會——只是為了理解，這是在亞洲。而亞洲第一季，傳統上是代理通路業務，起步非常快。我不預期這種成長會在躉繳（single premium）業務上持續。它的資本報酬率非常出色。我並不特別喜歡它的利潤率。但我告訴你，這有點像共同基金業務，你做很多量，然後賺一些錢。不過，隨著今年往後走，我預期更多的成長會來自以風險為基礎（risk-based）的定期繳費（regular premium）產品。

Okay. Fantastic. That's very helpful. And if I can sort of switch gears back to AI. One of the debates out there right now is whether -- if the insurance brokers collectively use AI to lower their own expenses or expand their margins. Does that provide an opportunity for companies like Chubb to reduce acquisition expenses?

好的。太棒了。這非常有幫助。那如果我可以把話題稍微切回 AI。現在外界有個討論是：如果保險經紀人整體運用 AI 來降低自身費用或擴大利潤率，這是否會為像 Chubb 這樣的公司帶來降低取得成本（acquisition expenses）的機會？

Pick your moment and at the right moment, it does. I mean, ultimately, I have to tell you, and I have been in this business a long time. And this industry has certain idiosyncrasies about it. And there is a belief that, therefore, these things will be durable like the cost of intermediation.

要看時機，選對時點，就會有。我是說，最終我得告訴你，我在這個行業很久了。這個產業有一些特殊的慣性與特質。也因此有人相信，像中介成本這類事情會很「耐久」。

The cost of intermediation in many parts of the industry, and this is not a slam against brokers. They’re our partners, but the intermediation costs overall in numerous parts of the business are excessive. And in an age of digitalization, in an age of AI and what technology does, one of the hallmarks of that is that it ought to ultimately, and it will, in so many areas, bring down cost. And if you look at the economics of the business and the cost of intermediation, I think in the longer term, it will -- it should decline.

在這個產業的許多領域，中介成本（這不是在抨擊經紀人；他們是我們的合作夥伴）——但整體而言，在許多業務線的中介成本是過高的。在數位化的時代、在 AI 與科技所帶來的變革之下，其中一個重要特徵就是：它理應、而且在很多領域也確實會，最終把成本降下來。若你看這門生意的經濟性與中介成本，我認為長期來看，它會——也應該——下降。

Okay. Thank you very much.

好的。非常感謝。

Tracy Benguigui, Wolfe Research.

Tracy Benguigui，Wolfe Research。

Hey, good morning. My question is for Tim Boroughs. There's been a noticeable change in tone by the market around private credit recently. From your perspective, has that influence how you're thinking about the role of private credit to play in your portfolio going forward? And if you could also touch on the health of the existing book, particularly any trends you may be seeing in underlying borrower performance or early signs of stress?

嗨，早安。我的問題是問 Tim Boroughs。最近市場對私募信貸（private credit）的語氣有明顯轉變。從你的角度看，這是否影響你對未來投資組合中私募信貸角色的思考？另外也請談談現有部位的健康狀況，特別是你是否看到借款人基本面表現的任何趨勢，或是任何早期壓力跡象？

Good morning, Tracy. Yeah. Sure. On our private credit, our credit -- our exposure to private credit is less than 4% of total investments and just over 50% of that total is in direct lending consisting of first lien senior secured loans that are at the top of the capital structure.

早安，Tracy。好的，當然。就我們的私募信貸而言——我們對私募信貸的曝險不到總投資的 4%，而其中略高於 50% 是直接放款（direct lending），主要是資本結構最上層的第一順位留置權（first lien）高級擔保貸款（senior secured loans）。

This portfolio is in separately managed accounts. And I think that, that's important, not BDCs, where we have control of deployment and enforce conservative guidelines to our managers. While the direct lending sector has grown rapidly, as you know, in the last few years, we've remained disciplined and have not grown our allocation. Our small group of experienced managers has consistently delivered strong conservative results with a loss experience we estimate to be only one-third of the broader direct lending universe.

這個投資組合是放在分別管理帳戶（separately managed accounts）裡。我認為這點很重要：不是 BDC（商業發展公司），我們能掌控資金投放並對管理人施行保守的指引。你也知道，直接放款領域在過去幾年快速成長，但我們仍保持紀律，沒有提高配置。我們少數幾位資深管理人一貫交出強勁且保守的成果；我們估計其損失經驗僅約為整體直接放款市場的三分之一。

This discipline is further evident in our very modest exposure to software, which at less than $150 million or 4% of the direct lending portfolio is a fraction of the 20% average across the sector and less than 0.25% of our total investment portfolio.

這種紀律也反映在我們對軟體產業非常有限的曝險：不到 1.5 億美元，或占直接放款投資組合的 4%，遠低於該領域平均約 20% 的比重，且占我們整體投資組合不到 0.25%。

That's super helpful. I'm also -- I'd love to get your thoughts on how you're thinking about the duration of this soft cycle. Does that steep pace of property pricing decline suggest something shorter-lived, maybe less sustainable? Or do the structural and capital factors you discussed with Mike point to a longer soft cycle? And if you could also touch on if you've seen any deterioration on terms and conditions that may play into the duration of this soft cycle.

這非常有幫助。我也——我很想聽聽你對這一輪軟市（soft cycle）可能持續多久的看法。財產險（property）價格下滑的速度這麼快，是否意味著這個循環會更短、可能較不具持續性？還是你先前和 Mike 討論的結構性與資本因素，指向更長的軟市？另外也請談談，你是否看到條款與條件（terms and conditions）有任何惡化，可能影響這輪軟市的持續時間。

Yeah. Terms and conditions just on the margin, not 0, but on the margin. And as to duration, well, look, I don't know. What I do know is you underprice business in property, and I haven't noticed that the attritional loss environment, property premium, property pricing is made up of two things: attritional loss, so you got price to support attritional loss in premium and then you got CAT.

有一些——只是在邊際上，不是完全沒有，但只是邊際上。至於持續時間，嗯，你看，我不知道。我知道的是：你在財產險把業務定價定得太低——而我沒有注意到常態性損失（attritional loss）環境有變弱。財產險保費、財產險定價由兩部分構成：常態性損失，所以你的價格必須能支撐常態性損失；然後還有巨災（CAT）。

I haven't noticed a diminution in the attritional loss environment. That's pretty steady, and it has a little volatility to it because of the size of losses, but pretty darn steady. And on the CAT side, well, unless you believe that the models are wrong or that somehow the climate environment is going to change or has changed and is going to become something other than what it has been, then -- then we have an adequate pricing and an adequate pricing in property tends to reveal itself pretty quickly.

我沒有看到常態性損失環境有下降。它相當穩定，雖然因損失規模會有些波動，但非常穩。至於巨災端，除非你相信模型是錯的，或認為氣候環境會改變、或已改變並將變成不同於以往的樣子，否則——那麼財產險的適足定價（adequate pricing）通常會很快就顯現出來。

And the only way out for capital providers at that point is to adjust pricing and to ensure they got the right terms and conditions. And so generally, in my mind, you go to a dumb place pretty quick, then the reaction the other way ought to be quicker. But you know what, I don't know with certainty. But that's kind of my mental model.

而在那個時點，資本提供者唯一的出路就是調整定價，並確保拿到正確的條款與條件。所以一般在我看來，你很快就會走到一個「很蠢」的地方，那麼往回修正的反應也應該更快。但你知道的，我也無法百分之百確定。不過這就是我心中的模型。

Thank you. Very helpful.

謝謝。很有幫助。

David Motemaden, Evercore.

David Motemaden，Evercore。

Thanks, good morning. I had another market question for North America Commercial. I noticed that the casualty pricing has held in pretty well here and actually accelerated a little bit this quarter. I get that it's nuanced, but as property returns come under pressure, do you expect to see increased competitive behavior shifting into casualty. Are you seeing any early signs of that? Just sort of wondering your outlook there.

謝謝，早安。我還有一個關於北美商業險市場的問題。我注意到責任險（casualty）定價維持得相當不錯，而且本季還稍微加速。我理解這很細緻，但當財產險回報承壓時，你是否預期競爭行為會更多轉向責任險？你是否看到任何早期跡象？想請教你對此的展望。

No. The -- so far, the pattern in pricing is about what I observed to you in prior quarters. In the cohorts that need price, you're getting price in excess of loss cost. And where the pricing is adequate, it is generally flat to, or in some instances, below loss cost increases. But I see it at this point as I look through the stack as pretty rational, not everywhere, of course. It's a market. But overall, I do. And I even have been surprised in certain areas where the market response has been the correct response and it creates more opportunity where rate adequacy is required and the market has respected that.

沒有。——到目前為止，定價的型態大致如我在前幾季跟你觀察到的一樣。在需要漲價的那些群組（cohorts），你拿到的價格漲幅高於損失成本（loss cost）。而在定價已足夠的地方，價格通常持平，或在某些情況下，低於損失成本的增幅。但此刻我從整體結構往下看，覺得相當理性——當然不是每個地方都如此，畢竟是市場。但整體而言是。而且我甚至在某些領域感到意外：市場反應是正確的，這反而在需要費率適足（rate adequacy）的地方創造更多機會，而市場也尊重這一點。

Got it. Thanks. That's encouraging there. Maybe just switching gears, the Chubb worksite benefits the 16% growth there, that's pretty solid, I think, especially after similar growth last year. Could you just talk a little bit about the strategic role of the worksite benefits business within the broader portfolio and how you're thinking about the key building blocks to scale it from here, whether that's distribution product expansion or maybe even potentially M&A?

了解。謝謝。這聽起來令人鼓舞。那再換個話題，Chubb 的職場福利（worksite benefits）成長 16%，我覺得相當扎實，尤其去年也有類似的成長。你能否談談職場福利業務在更大投資組合中的策略角色？以及你如何看待接下來擴大規模的關鍵要素——不論是通路、產品擴張，或甚至潛在的併購（M&A）？

Yeah. There's no M&A on there on the horizon. As we see, we've built it organically, and we're continuing to -- it's fundamentally part of our Accident & Health strategy. We pursue it in two ways. We have the legacy agency force of combined that we have retooled to not sell individual insurance, but small group, worksite benefits business.

好的。那邊沒有任何即將發生的併購。我們目前看到的是：我們是靠有機成長建立起來的，而且我們會持續——它本質上是我們意外與健康（Accident & Health, A&H）策略的一部分。我們用兩種方式推進。我們有一支既有的代理人隊伍（legacy agency force），我們已將其重新調整，不再賣個人保險，而是賣小型團體的職場福利業務。

And it is predominantly supplemental A&H business that you know us for, dread disease, hospital cash, et cetera, to really lower middle income to middle income people and provides a supplemental product to them. It's the same but with a different distribution for larger account, middle market, upper middle market to large jumbo now where we're awarded business. And it works very closely with our P&C distribution and our P&C distribution and the brokers who represent us that way. They have expanded greatly over the years into employee benefits.

而它主要是你熟悉的補充型 A&H 業務，例如重大疾病、住院現金給付等等，面向中低收入到中等收入族群，為他們提供補充性產品。概念相同，但在較大帳戶上採用不同的通路：從中型市場、上中型市場到大型、現在甚至到超大型（jumbo），我們都能拿到承保。它也與我們的產險（P&C）通路緊密合作——以及代表我們的經紀人；多年來他們在員工福利領域擴張很大。

And the notion that you couldn't cross sell one to the other is an old myth. Because, in fact, the relationships and the accounts, we are benefiting from that in the growth of Chubb worksite benefits. And it, again, is a similar product mix with maybe a bit more of term life built into it as well. It's risk-based products.

認為兩邊無法交叉銷售（cross sell）是一個老迷思。因為事實上，這些關係與客戶帳戶，我們正從中受益，推動 Chubb 職場福利的成長。而且它同樣是類似的產品組合，只是可能也多了一點定期壽險（term life）的成分。這些都是以風險為基礎的產品。

When I look at -- and it's on life paper. So when you look at the broader story, of our life business and you look at our international life business, which, as I've told you, is over two-thirds risk-based supplemental A&H type business growing through agency distribution, digital distribution, banks, et cetera, and has as well savings and other protection products within it. It's just part of a coherent story of what we are pursuing between Accident & Health and Life, which both are growth areas for the company.

當我看——而且這是在壽險帳（life paper）上。所以當你看更大的故事：我們的壽險業務，以及我們的國際壽險業務（如我告訴過你，超過三分之二是以風險為基礎的補充型 A&H 類業務，透過代理通路、數位通路、銀行等成長，同時也包含儲蓄與其他保障型產品），這只是我們在意外與健康與壽險兩條線上所追求的一個一致且連貫的故事的一部分；而這兩者都是公司成長的領域。

That's helpful. Thank you.

這很有幫助。謝謝。

Alex Scott, Barclays.

Alex Scott，巴克萊。

Hey, thanks. First one I have is on the Middle East conflict. Can you talk about your involvement in some of the solutions that are being contemplated for marine and trade credit and so forth? And to what degree that could support some growth near term?

嗨，謝謝。我第一個問題是關於中東衝突。你能談談你們在一些正在考慮的解決方案中的參與情況嗎，例如海運與貿易信用等？以及這在多大程度上可能在短期內支持一些成長？

And to what degree, what?

以及在多大程度上，什麼？

It could just help with, I guess, the growth opportunity.

我的意思是，它可能只是有助於——我想——成長機會。

I was approached by our government to put together the program that you have read about, that we announced. The government wanted to support shipping through the Gulf and open when they think that the risk environment is such that they can support, with military convoys, ships that would transit the Gulf and that has yet to occur.

我們的政府曾找我，希望我把你們讀到、我們也已宣布的那個計畫整合出來。政府希望在他們認為風險環境允許的情況下，透過軍事護航船隊來支持船舶穿越海灣並保持航道開放，但這件事目前尚未發生。

The program is to ensure shipping under those conditions and the purchase of our insurance program is a condition to being part of a convoy that the U.S. would run. The U.S. military would run. The program is supported by U.S. insurers taking 50% of the risk and the other half of the risk is taken by an arm of the federal government.

這個計畫是在上述條件下確保航運；而購買我們的保險方案，是加入由美國（由美軍）運行的護航船隊的條件之一。該計畫由美國保險公司承擔50%的風險，另外50%的風險則由聯邦政府的一個部門承擔。

We have done it, number one, to support our country and to support our military. Number two, to support the global commons and the economy, to the degree that we, practicing our craft, can provide that service. And it's in place and when conditions are such. If they are, then this will obviously generate -- would potentially generate premium revenue. And stay tuned.

我們這麼做，第一，是為了支持我們的國家並支持我們的軍隊。第二，是為了支持全球公共領域與經濟——在我們能以專業所長提供這項服務的範圍內。這個機制已經就位；當條件成熟時——如果成熟——這顯然將會帶來、或可能帶來保費收入。敬請期待。

That's all helpful. Thank you. Second one I had is on your partnership with KKR and some of the funds that you're putting together. And I just wanted to check in on the timing of it, when some of those newer things you've been working on are going to potentially contribute to NII or if they're already contributing to NII. It just wasn't clear. And I guess related to that, has some of the AI disruption changed anything about timing of all of that and the work you're doing?

這些都很有幫助。謝謝。第二個問題是關於你們與KKR的合作夥伴關係，以及你們正在組建的一些基金。我想確認一下時程：你們最近在推進的一些新項目，何時可能對淨利息收入（NII）做出貢獻，或者是否已經在貢獻？我不太清楚。另外相關地，AI帶來的顛覆是否改變了這些事情的時程或你們正在做的工作？

Yeah. I think you're missing something. We have disclosed quite clearly, particularly the last at the investor dinner and in quarters before, quite a bit of detail about our alternative assets and the investment activity there, what's our strategy.

是的。我覺得你漏掉了一些資訊。我們其實披露得相當清楚，尤其是在上次投資人晚宴以及之前幾個季度，我們對另類資產與相關投資活動、以及我們的策略，都提供了相當多的細節。

We -- half of it is in our partnership called Strategic Holdings. And we described what that is about. And by the way, we've been very clear about the income that it is producing and the income we expect it to produce over the next few years that we expect to achieve as we deploy. We've talked about the capital deployment. So that's all out there, but we're happy to separately take it offline and give you detail around it. I think Peter wanted to give you, did you want to give it to him?

我們——其中一半是在我們名為Strategic Holdings的合作夥伴關係中。我們也說明了那是什麼。順帶一提，我們也非常清楚地說明了它目前產生的收益，以及未來幾年隨著我們逐步部署、我們預期將產生的收益。我們談過資本部署。所以這些資訊都已經在外面了；不過我們也很樂意之後私下再跟你說明細節。我想Peter想跟你補充——你要跟他說嗎？

No, that's fine, Alex. I can talk to you offline, but it does show up in our adjusted NII, and you can see it on the income statement and income from private equity partnerships. That's a substantial part.

不用了，Alex。我可以私下跟你談，但它確實會反映在我們調整後的NII中，你也可以在損益表上看到，列在「來自私募股權合夥投資的收益」。那是一個相當重要的部分。

Yeah, understood. Thank you.

好的，了解。謝謝。

Matthew Heimermann, Citi.

Matthew Heimermann，花旗。

Hey, good morning, everybody. Just one on reinsurance. I'm just curious, should we think about relative to any softening in pricing relative to how you're thinking about rate adequacy, just more opportunistic reinsurance purchases on a go-forward basis? Or is it just this was so acute, particularly on the property side, you felt compelled to do so?

嗨，各位早安。我只有一個關於再保險的問題。我很好奇：相較於定價可能出現的任何走軟，你們如何看待費率充足性？未來是否會更機會性地購買再保險？還是說這次主要是因為情況非常急迫——尤其在財產險這一端——所以你們覺得必須這麼做？

Can you just repeat that, Matt? We have something changing. Can you hear me?

Matt，你可以再重複一次嗎？我們這邊好像有些變化。你聽得到我嗎？

I can hear you, and I'm on a headset. So --

我聽得到，而且我戴著耳機。所以——

We just gave ourselves a head fake in here. But go ahead. Can you repeat?

我們剛剛自己這邊有點誤判了。不過你繼續。可以再重複一次嗎？

Just how to think about how likely additional opportunistic reinsurance purchases are? And I don't want to overreact to what you did in property because the declines were pretty significant. But just how likely -- because I don't view as an arbitrage reinsurance buyer, but obviously it's available. So just trying to think about how your thinking around risk management evolves vis-a-vis the reinsurance pricing spread. And the follow-on really, which I'm really more curious about is like where does this allow you, if anywhere, to take more risk, asset side, et cetera?

就是再問：未來額外、機會性購買再保險的可能性該怎麼看？我不想對你們在財產險上做的事反應過度，因為降幅確實很大。但我只是想了解可能性有多高——因為我不把你們視為會做再保險套利的買方，但顯然市場上是有供給的。所以想請教你們在風險管理上的思考，如何隨著再保險定價利差而演變。以及後續一點——我其實更好奇的是：這是否讓你們在任何地方可以承擔更多風險，例如資產端等等？

Yeah. I'm not really going there, except to say to you that axiomatic in here. When pricing becomes marginal or inadequate, we have various tools to manage exposure and our appetite for exposure. It's not about premium. And so reinsurance is simply one of those. Could you hear that answer because we're having some audio problems right here.

是的。我不太會往那個方向延伸；我只能說，這裡有一個基本原則：當定價變得偏邊際或不足時，我們有各種工具來管理曝險以及我們對曝險的偏好。這不是為了保費。因此，再保險只是其中一個工具。你聽得到這個回答嗎？我們這邊音訊有點問題。

You were clear to me. Willing to add anything with respect to if shrinking risk appetite in places in proper response to market conditions, does that create some flexibility to take more risk asset side? Or are there any things from a complexion change in the portfolio that influence that?

我聽得很清楚。想再追問一下：如果你們在某些地方因應市場狀況而縮減風險偏好，這是否會在資產端帶來承擔更多風險的彈性？或者投資組合結構的變化是否會影響這方面？

No. The way we run a business doesn't think -- we don't think that. We've got plenty of capital, and we maximize the amount of risk we take based on how we judge risk reward, and there's no trade-off one to the other.

不會。我們經營業務的方式不是那樣想的——我們不這麼看。我們資本很充足，我們會根據對風險報酬的判斷來最大化承擔的風險量，兩者之間沒有此消彼長的取捨。

Appreciate it. Thank you.

了解，謝謝。

Brian Meredith, UBS.

Brian Meredith，瑞銀。

Yes, thanks. Evan, we keep hearing a lot about price, what's happening in the property markets. I wonder if you could talk about terms and conditions. Hearing a little bit more about some softening terms and conditions from people. Are you seeing that? And maybe you can maybe dive into that a little bit because that can be kind of scary.

是的，謝謝。Evan，我們一直聽到很多關於價格、財產險市場正在發生什麼。我想請你談談條款與條件。我聽一些人說條款與條件有些走軟。你有看到嗎？也許你可以再深入談一下，因為那可能會讓人有點擔心。

Welcome to the insurance business, Brian. It's not scary. It just is what it always turns out to be. No, as I said earlier, we're seeing it only on the margin right now. Other than that, we're not, at this point, seeing changes to terms and conditions. And we're quite mindful and there you go. And by the way, when we look at pricing changes, we value term and condition changes. So we don't just sort of say price goes this. And by the way, change in BI waiting periods, deductibles, CPI, et cetera, that's just off to the side. No, we actually put value on it in pricing. We’re not seeing it. We're seeing it very marginally at this point.

歡迎來到保險業，Brian。這不可怕；它就是一如既往會發生的事。不過，如我先前所說，我們目前只是在邊際上看到一些。除此之外，現階段我們沒有看到條款與條件的變化。我們也非常留意。順帶一提，當我們看定價變化時，我們會把條款與條件的變化納入估值；我們不會只是說價格變成這樣。還有，像是營業中斷（BI）等待期、免賠額、CPI等等的變動，不是被放在一旁不管；我們會在定價中對其賦值。我們目前沒有看到，或只在非常邊際的程度上看到。

Great. And then the second question is I've heard a little bit from some other companies about admitted markets getting call it, more competitive in taking business back from the E&S or wholesale non-admitted markets. Are you seeing that at this point?

很好。第二個問題是：我從其他一些公司那邊聽到，核准市場（admitted markets）變得更具競爭力，開始把業務從E&S或批發的非核准市場（non-admitted markets）搶回來。你們目前有看到這種情況嗎？

I am on the margin of it so far. And frankly, it's what's so interesting to me. I look at middle market and small commercial E&S versus admitted. Admitted, much, much more disciplined. E&S less so. And that is, again, back to the comments I made about distribution, capital, and the incentive system for volume. It's, to some degree, terribly illogical to me. I'm seeing some go back towards the admitted. It wouldn't surprise me to see more. It's a classic pattern in softening market. Where I'm seeing it is more on the margin in the property side. retail that will all of a sudden get so excited to write habitational wood frame business in Texas. Okay. Good luck to you.

到目前為止我只在邊際上看到。坦白說，這也是我覺得很有意思的地方。我看中型市場與小型商業的E&S相對於核准市場：核准市場要自律得多；E&S則沒那麼自律。這又回到我對通路、資本，以及以量為導向的激勵機制的評論。某種程度上，這對我來說非常不合邏輯。我確實看到有些業務回流到核准市場；如果之後看到更多，我也不意外。這是市場走軟時的典型模式。我看到的更多是在財產險那一端——零售端突然就很興奮地想在德州承作集合住宅木結構（habitational wood frame）業務。好吧，祝你們好運。

Thank you. We've run out of time for questions. This concludes today's Q&A session. I'll now pass the conference back over to Susan Spivak for closing remarks.

謝謝。我們的提問時間已到。今天的問答環節到此結束。接下來我將把會議交回給Susan Spivak作結語。

Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. If you have any follow-up questions, we will be around to take your call enjoy the day, and thanks again.

謝謝各位今天參與。如果你們有任何後續問題，我們會在這裡接聽你們的來電。祝各位今天愉快，再次感謝。

This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.

今天的電話會議到此結束。您現在可以掛線。