丘博保險集團 (CB) 2026 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Thank you for standing by. My name is Jail, and I’ll be your conference operator today. At this time, I’d like to welcome everyone to Chubb Limited second-quarter 2026 earnings call. (Operator Instructions)

感謝您稍候。我的名字是 Jail，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 年第二季財報電話會議。（接線員指示）

I'd 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。您可以開始了。

Thank you, and welcome to our June 30, 2026, second-quarter earnings conference call. 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.

謝謝，歡迎各位參加我們截至 2026 年 6 月 30 日的第二季財報電話會議。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，實際結果可能有重大差異。

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. 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.

更多可能影響上述事項之因素，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，皆可於我們網站 investors.chubb.com 取得。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; and Chris Hogan, our Chief Investment Officer, then we will take your questions. Also with us today to assist with your questions are several members of our Management Team.

現在，我想介紹我們的講者。首先是董事長兼執行長 Evan Greenberg；接著是財務長 Peter Enns；以及投資長 Chris Hogan，之後我們將進入問答。今天也有數位管理團隊成員在場，協助回覆各位的提問。

And it's now my pleasure to turn the call over to Evan.

現在很高興把電話交給 Evan。

Good morning. We had a very strong quarter. The results speak to our strengths and competitive profile, the health of our balance sheet, the growth of our invested asset, and the diversification of our businesses globally with the opportunities they present, all set against our disciplined approach to underwriting.

各位早安。我們本季表現非常強勁。結果展現了我們的優勢與競爭定位、資產負債表的健全、投資資產的成長，以及我們在全球業務的多元化與其所帶來的機會；而這一切都建立在我們嚴謹的核保紀律之上。

Strong P&C underwriting, investment, and life income results led to core operating earnings of $2.8 billion, or $7.26 per share, up 14.6% and 18.2%, respectively, over the prior year. Our most important measure of shareholder wealth creation, tangible book value per share, is up 17.1% year over year.

強勁的產險（P&C）核保、投資與壽險收益表現，帶動核心營運盈餘達 28 億美元，或每股 7.26 美元，分別較去年同期成長 14.6% 與 18.2%。我們衡量股東財富創造最重要的指標——每股有形帳面價值——年增 17.1%。

Our annualized core operating return on tangible equity was 21.2% for the quarter, and core operating ROE was 14.5%. P&C underwriting income was more than $1.9 billion, up almost 19%, with a combined ratio of 83.8%. On a current accident year basis, excluding cats, the combined ratio was 82.2%.

本季年化核心營運有形股東權益報酬率（ROTE）為 21.2%，核心營運股東權益報酬率（ROE）為 14.5%。產險（P&C）核保利益超過 19 億美元，成長近 19%，綜合成本率為 83.8%。以當期事故年度基礎計算、排除巨災（cats）後，綜合成本率為 82.2%。

On the investment side of our business, adjusted net investment income was a record $1.88 billion, up more than 11%, supported by excellent performance in our fixed income and alternative asset portfolios. The fixed income portfolio yield was 5.1% and our current new money rate averaged 5.5% as of June 30. Our invested asset now stands at $175 billion, up from $161 billion a year ago. Life income of $332 million was up 9%.

在投資業務方面，調整後淨投資收益創下 18.8 億美元的歷史新高，成長逾 11%，主要受惠於我們固定收益與另類資產投資組合的優異表現。截至 6 月 30 日，固定收益投資組合殖利率為 5.1%，目前新投入資金利率（new money rate）平均為 5.5%。我們的投資資產目前為 1,750 億美元，高於一年前的 1,610 億美元。壽險收益為 3.32 億美元，成長 9%。

As you know, we are well diversified globally by geography and product and by the type of customer we serve in both commercial and consumer businesses. And we are well diversified by distribution channel, reaching customers the way they want to buy. Our pattern of growth speaks to this. The substantial majority of our businesses are growing, with the balance flat or purposely shrinking due to inadequate pricing or terms. The most obvious and visible example of this is US large account and E&S property, where we again shed a significant volume of premium.

如各位所知，我們在全球按地理區域、產品，以及在商業與消費者業務中所服務的客戶類型，皆具高度多元化。我們在通路上也相當多元，能以客戶希望的方式觸達並完成購買。我們的成長型態也反映了這點。我們絕大多數業務都在成長，其餘則持平或因定價或條款不足而刻意縮減。最明顯、也最具可見度的例子是美國大型帳戶與 E&S（超額及剩餘）財產險，我們再次削減了相當可觀的保費量。

Property aside, the vast majority of the balance of our businesses in the US and globally are growing at various rates. Some faster, some slower, market and macro conditions dependent, including personal lines, small and middle market commercial, A&H, life, and even large account business, excluding property. Peter is going to have more to say about financial items.

撇開財產險不談，我們在美國及全球其餘絕大多數業務都以不同速度成長。有些較快、有些較慢，取決於市場與總體環境，包括個人險、小型與中型商業、A&H（意外與健康險）、壽險，甚至是不含財產險的大型帳戶業務。Peter 將就財務項目提供更多說明。

Looking more closely at growth, pricing in the rate environment, global P&C premiums were up 3%, or 6.3%, excluding large account E&S property. Overseas General grew 10.2%, or 4.8% in constant dollar. North America was up about 0.5%, with commercial down 2.3%, while personal lines and ag were up each 6%. Commercial was up 4.1%, major and specialty property again aside.

更仔細看成長與利率環境下的定價，全球產險（P&C）保費成長 3%；若排除大型帳戶 E&S 財產險，則成長 6.3%。海外一般保險（Overseas General）成長 10.2%，以固定匯率（constant dollar）計為 4.8%。北美約成長 0.5%，其中商業險下滑 2.3%，而個人險與農業險各成長 6%。商業險成長 4.1%，同樣不含主要與專業財產險。

For context and observing from a broader perspective, soft market conditions have begun to spread beyond property to more casualty lines, particularly E&S. So those certain classes of large account and middle market are growing more competitive.

作為背景並從更宏觀的角度觀察，疲弱（soft）的市場狀況已開始從財產險擴散到更多責任險種，尤其是 E&S。因此，某些大型帳戶與中型市場的特定類別競爭正變得更激烈。

Pricing in numerous areas of casualty are failing to keep pace with loss costs, which are hardly benign. Keep in mind, US casualty loss costs are rising at a pretty steady 6% to 7% for primary casualty, and 9.5% to 12% for excess. And that's per year, and it varies by class of business as to whether it's rising 6% or 7%, or 9.5% or 12%.

在多個責任險領域，定價未能跟上損失成本的上升，而損失成本絕非溫和。請記住，美國責任險損失成本上升相當穩定：主責任險（primary casualty）約每年上升 6% 至 7%，超額責任險（excess）約每年上升 9.5% 至 12%。而且這是按年度計算，並會因業務類別不同而有所差異，可能是上升 6% 或 7%，也可能是 9.5% 或 12%。

Pricing becomes marginal or inadequate pretty quickly when you're running those kinds of loss costs. In the meantime, financial lines continues to be soft. And here, we notice an unsurprising pattern, where experienced, large companies are much more disciplined and rational, while naive, newer players, particularly financial lines, MGAs, and smaller companies, are underwriting in prices and terms that are inadequate.

在這樣的損失成本水準下，定價很快就會變得勉強或不足。同時，金融線（financial lines）仍然疲弱。在此我們看到一個不令人意外的模式：有經驗的大型公司更具紀律且更理性；而缺乏經驗的新進者，特別是在金融線、MGA（管理型一般代理）以及較小型公司，正以不足的價格與條款進行核保。

In fact, of late, we've observed brokers securing coverage terms from these markets that experienced underwriters discontinued 20, 25 years ago, and for good reason. Again, from Chubb's perspective, while all this impacts us, we are so well diversified that it has relatively and absolutely less impact overall. With that as a baseline, I'm going to give you more color on the corridor by division and region.

事實上，近期我們觀察到經紀人從這些市場取得的承保條款，是有經驗的核保人早在 20、25 年前就已停止提供的，而且理由充分。再一次，從 Chubb 的角度來看，雖然這些情況會影響我們，但由於我們的多元化程度很高，整體而言其相對與絕對影響都較小。以此為基礎，我將按事業部與地區，提供更多關於走勢區間（corridor）的細節。

Our international retail business, which produces more than $17 billion in gross premiums annually, operates in 51 countries, and is about 90% of our overseas general division. And it grew almost 12% in the quarter, or about 6% in constant dollar.

我們的國際零售業務每年產生超過 170 億美元的毛保費，營運遍及 51 個國家，約占我們海外一般保險事業部的 90%。本季成長近 12%，以固定匯率計約成長 6%。

Consumer-related businesses, both A&H and personal lines, were up more than 12%, with commercial lines up over 11%. Latin America grew 15.6%. Asia grew 12%. Europe grew nearly 7.5%. In our London wholesale business, the market is highly competitive, and not only in property.

與消費者相關的業務（A&H 與個人險）成長超過 12%，商業險成長超過 11%。拉丁美洲成長 15.6%。亞洲成長 12%。歐洲成長近 7.5%。在我們的倫敦批發業務中，市場競爭非常激烈，而且不僅限於財產險。

It's worth noting that London is actively writing US casualty for the last few quarters, a movie we have seen before. The volume is growing, and it rates in terms that can only end one way. There's a reason US casualty is going to London, and it isn't due to a lack of capacity in the United States. Premiums in our London wholesale business, which is about 10% of international P&C, were down about 1% in the quarter.

值得注意的是，倫敦在過去幾季一直積極承作美國責任險——這部「電影」我們以前看過。承保量正在增加，而其費率與條款只會導向一種結局。美國責任險之所以流向倫敦是有原因的，並不是因為美國本土缺乏承保容量。我們的倫敦批發業務保費約占國際產險（P&C）的 10%，本季約下滑 1%。

In North America commercial, premiums in our middle market and small commercial division grew almost 9%, with P&C lines up 12% and financial lines down about 3%. This is a powerhouse franchise, which produces more than $9.5 billion in gross premiums annually, with a vast geographic footprint and broad product capability serving small and mid-sized companies of all kinds from a wide range of industries.

在北美商業險方面，我們中型市場與小型商業事業部的保費成長近 9%，其中產險（P&C）線別成長 12%，金融線下滑約 3%。這是一個實力雄厚的旗艦型特許經營（franchise），每年產生超過 95 億美元的毛保費，具備廣泛的地理覆蓋與多元產品能力，服務來自各行各業的各類小型與中型企業。

Premiums in major account and specialty, or E&S, declined 9% in the quarter because of property. In North America, pricing for commercial property and casualty, excluding fin lines and comp, was up 1.3%, with rates down 1.4% and exposure change of 2.7%.

由於財產險因素，主要客戶與專業險（或稱 E&S，超額及特殊險）在本季保費下滑 9%。在北美地區，商業財產與意外險（不含金融線與勞工補償）定價上升 1.3%，其中費率下降 1.4%，曝險變動增加 2.7%。

Property pricing was down about 6%, with rates down 10.5% and exposure up 5%, too. But going a step further, property pricing was down 12% 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 around 40%.

財產險定價約下降 6%，其中費率下降 10.5%，曝險也上升 5%。但再進一步看，我們所承保的業務中，共保與分層（shared and layered）、主要客戶與專業險的財產險定價下降 12%。至於我們放棄或未承作的業務，其市場定價約下降 40%。

In middle market and small commercial, property pricing was up 2.3%. Casualty pricing in North America was up 7.1%, with rates up 6.4% and exposure up 0.7%, and fin lines pricing was up 0.3%.

在中型市場與小型商業領域，財產險定價上升 2.3%。北美意外險定價上升 7.1%，其中費率上升 6.4%，曝險上升 0.7%；金融線定價上升 0.3%。

On the consumer side of North America, our high-net-worth personal lines business, the clear market leader in that category, had a really good quarter, with premium growth of 6%, and renewal retention on an account basis of 90%. Our North America personal lines business is now more than $8 billion in gross premiums annually.

在北美的消費者端，我們的高淨值個人險業務（該類別明確的市場領導者）本季表現非常出色，保費成長 6%，以帳戶為基礎的續保留存率為 90%。我們北美個人險業務目前每年總保費已超過 80 億美元。

In our international life insurance business, premiums and deposits rose almost 14.5% (sic -- see press release, "14.5%"). The vast majority of our life exposure, as is in Asia, and the majority of our growth is in North Asia, meaning China, Hong Kong, Korea, and Taiwan.

在我們的國際壽險業務中，保費與存款成長近 14.5%（原文如此——請見新聞稿「14.5%」）。我們的壽險曝險絕大多數在亞洲，而我們的成長主要來自北亞，也就是中國、香港、韓國與台灣。

Premiums in our North America Chubb Worksite Benefits business were up 14%. Our life division produced $332 million of pre-tax income in the quarter, up 9% from last year. The life division now produces annual premiums of over $8 billion. Five years ago, it was $2.5 billion.

我們北美 Chubb Worksite Benefits（職場福利）業務的保費成長 14%。本季壽險事業部稅前利益為 3.32 億美元，較去年成長 9%。壽險事業部目前每年保費已超過 80 億美元。五年前為 25 億美元。

Our diversification, presence, and capabilities globally, and our operating discipline provide us with continued growth opportunities and resilience. This quarter's results add to a long track record that demonstrates we are a consistent compounder of wealth. We're an all-weather firm. We have many sources of opportunity on both the liability and the asset side of the balance sheet, and we are patient.

我們在全球的多元化、布局與能力，以及營運紀律，為我們帶來持續的成長機會與韌性。本季成果延續了長期的紀錄，證明我們是一家能持續複利累積財富的公司。我們是一家能因應各種景氣環境的公司。在資產負債表上，無論負債端或資產端，我們都有許多機會來源，而且我們有耐心。

CATs and FX aside, I'm confident in our ability to continue to outperform and to generate strong growth in operating earnings and EPS, and most importantly, double-digit intangible book value, our most important indicator of shareholder wealth.

撇除巨災（CATs）與匯率（FX）因素，我對我們持續跑贏同業、並在營運利益與每股盈餘（EPS）上創造強勁成長的能力充滿信心；更重要的是，能帶來雙位數的無形帳面價值（intangible book value）成長——這是我們衡量股東財富最重要的指標。

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

接下來我把電話會議交給 Peter，之後我會再回來，我們將開始回答各位的提問。

Thank you, Evan, and good morning. We had another strong quarter, led by our P&C divisions globally, growing life business, and strong investment performance, all of which further strengthen our financial position, including invested assets of $175 billion and $3.5 billion of adjusted operating cash flows.

謝謝你，Evan，大家早安。我們又交出一個強勁的季度表現，主要由全球產險（P&C）事業部帶動，加上壽險業務成長與強勁的投資表現，進一步強化我們的財務狀況，包括 1,750 億美元的投資資產，以及 35 億美元的調整後營運現金流。

There are a few capital-related matters I'd like to touch on. First, we issued $2.2 billion of debt across a few currencies at a weighted average cost of 4.2% and an average term of about 7.5 years. The use of proceeds is for general corporate purposes, which includes the repayment and refinancing of debt.

有幾項與資本相關的事項我想簡要說明。首先，我們以多種貨幣發行了 22 億美元的債務，加權平均成本為 4.2%，平均期限約 7.5 年。募集資金用途為一般公司用途，包括償還與再融資債務。

Secondly, in May, our Board authorized a new $7.5 billion share repurchase program that took effect on July 1, with no expiration date. In the quarter, we returned $1.4 billion of capital to shareholders, including $979 million in share repurchases at an average price of $327.18 per share and $395 million in dividends.

第二，5 月董事會核准新的 75 億美元庫藏股回購計畫，自 7 月 1 日起生效，且沒有到期日。本季我們向股東返還資本 14 億美元，其中包括以每股平均 327.18 美元回購 9.79 億美元股票，以及 3.95 億美元股利。

We ended the quarter with an all-time high in book value of $75 billion or $195.45 per share. Book and tangible book value per share excluding AOCI grew 2.8% and 3.8%, respectively, for the quarter, and 11.4% and 15.8% from last year.

本季末我們的帳面價值達到歷史新高 750 億美元，或每股 195.45 美元。剔除 AOCI（累積其他綜合損益）後，每股帳面價值與每股有形帳面價值本季分別成長 2.8% 與 3.8%；較去年同期分別成長 11.4% 與 15.8%。

Pre-tax catastrophe losses were $475 million for the quarter, principally from weather-related events in the US. Prior period -- pre-tax prior period development in the quarter in our active companies was a favorable $441 million, split 89% short-tail lines and 11% long-tail lines.

本季稅前巨災損失為 4.75 億美元，主要來自美國與天氣相關的事件。前期——本季我們在持續經營公司（active companies）的稅前前期準備金發展為有利 4.41 億美元，其中 89% 來自短尾業務、11% 來自長尾業務。

Our corporate runoff portfolio had adverse development of $158 million with over two-thirds of that coming from molestation-related claims development. Our pay-to-incurred ratio for the quarter was 90%, and our net loss reserves increased to nearly $69 billion, representing a growth of 4% from the second quarter last year. Excluding CAT's PPD and agriculture, our pay-to-incurred ratio was 86%.

我們的公司清理（runoff）投資組合出現不利發展 1.58 億美元，其中超過三分之二來自與性侵害（molestation）相關理賠的發展。本季我們的已付對已發生（pay-to-incurred）比率為 90%，淨損失準備金增加至接近 690 億美元，較去年第二季成長 4%。剔除巨災的 PPD 與農業後，我們的已付對已發生比率為 86%。

Our core operating effective tax rate is 19.2% for the quarter, which is below our previously guided range due to shifts in the mix of income and discrete tax benefits related to equity awards and certain investments. We continue to expect our 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 19.2%，低於我們先前指引區間，原因在於所得組合的變化，以及與股權獎酬與部分投資相關的一次性稅務利益。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。

Turning to investments, our A-rated portfolio increased about $2.5 billion in the quarter to $173 billion and is up 14.3% or 9% over the last 12 months, supported by approximately $16 billion in adjusted operating cash flows. Adjusted net investment income of $1.88 billion was above our previously guided range, primarily due to strong growth in the invested asset base and higher than projected private equity income.

談到投資，我們的 A 級投資組合本季增加約 25 億美元至 1,730 億美元，過去 12 個月成長 14.3%（或 9%），主要受約 160 億美元的調整後營運現金流支持。調整後淨投資收益為 18.8 億美元，高於我們先前指引區間，主要因投資資產基礎強勁成長，以及私募股權收益高於預期。

To give you a bit more color on investment income and the portfolio, I'll turn it over to our Chief Investment Officer, Chris Hogan.

為了讓各位更了解投資收益與投資組合的情況，我把時間交給我們的投資長 Chris Hogan。

Thank you, Peter. Good morning, everyone. Our public fixed income portfolio generated $1.63 billion of income in the quarter, up 12% year-over-year. And our private investments, which make up 12% of the portfolio, contributed $250 million of income, up 9.5% year-over-year.

謝謝你，Peter。各位早安。本季我們的公開市場固定收益投資組合創造 16.3 億美元收益，年增 12%。而我們的私募投資（占投資組合 12%）貢獻 2.5 億美元收益，年增 9.5%。

Our fixed income portfolio will continue to generate consistent and growing quarter-to-quarter income. And as we thoughtfully grow our private investments, income from that book, while more variable, will continue to trend higher over time. This is an ideal environment for investment-grade bond investors. Our reinvestment rate of 5.5% is a structurally attractive level, sitting well above the portfolio's book yield of 5.1%.

我們的固定收益投資組合將持續帶來穩定且逐季成長的收益。隨著我們審慎擴大私募投資，該投資帳簿的收益雖較具波動性，但長期仍將持續走高。這對投資級債券投資人而言是理想的環境。我們 5.5% 的再投資利率在結構上相當具吸引力，明顯高於投資組合 5.1% 的帳面殖利率。

The portfolio and insurance operations continue to generate excellent cash flow that we're investing at yields that both compound book value and drive significant income growth. Financial assets in many markets are expensive and priced to perfection.

投資組合與保險營運持續產生優異的現金流，我們以能同時複利推升帳面價值並帶動顯著收益成長的殖利率進行投資。許多市場的金融資產價格偏貴，且估值已反映近乎完美的情境。

At the same time, longer-term yields remain exposed to structural pressures, rising federal deficits, corporate credit demands, persistent inflation, and the potential for foreign rotation out of US assets. These forces may lead to higher yields, wider credit spreads, and pressure on risk asset valuations.

同時，較長期的殖利率仍面臨結構性壓力，包括聯邦赤字上升、企業信用需求增加、持續的通膨，以及外資可能自美國資產輪動退出的風險。這些力量可能導致殖利率上升、信用利差擴大，並對風險資產估值造成壓力。

We remain disciplined and focused on risk-adjusted returns, maintaining a substantial ballast of high-quality, liquid investment-grade assets and the conservative duration. This positioning is central to our current strategy. It will allow us to move quickly to take advantage of market dislocations as opportunities develop.

我們仍維持紀律並專注於風險調整後報酬，保有相當規模的高品質、具流動性的投資級資產作為穩定器（ballast），並採取保守的存續期間配置。這樣的配置是我們目前策略的核心。它將使我們能在市場出現錯價時迅速行動，把握逐步浮現的機會。

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

接下來我把電話會議交回給 Susan。

Thank you. At this point, we're happy to take your questions. Operator, please open up the line for questions.

謝謝。接下來我們很樂意回答各位的提問。接線員，請開放提問線路。

(Operator Instructions)

(接線員指示)

Matt Heimermann, Citi.

Matt Heimermann，花旗。

Hey, good morning, everybody. A couple of questions. First question is just international life and accident and health. There was some regulatory decrees, changes in Singapore on deductibles for accident health, and then investor-related products in Hong Kong for mainland China visitors. I'm just curious if there was any impact in the quarter or any product redesign required?

各位早安。我有幾個問題。第一個問題是關於國際的人壽以及意外與健康險。新加坡針對意外健康產品的自付額有一些監管命令與變更，另外香港也有一項與中國大陸訪港旅客相關的投資型產品命令。我想了解這一季是否有任何影響，或是否需要進行任何產品重新設計？

Sorry, they were playing with the buttons here for a second, Matt. Can you just repeat the question itself?

抱歉，Matt，我們剛剛在按鈕操作上卡了一下。你可以把問題再重複一次嗎？

Sure. So in Singapore, there were some regulatory changes to deductible levels for accident health products. And then in Hong Kong, obviously, there was a decree related to investment products for Mainland China visitors. I'm just curious whether or not those had any material impact on flows in the quarter. If there's any need to change product design at all to address those?

當然。新加坡對意外健康產品的自付額水準有一些監管變更。然後在香港，顯然有一項與中國大陸訪客相關的投資產品命令。我想了解這些是否對本季的業務流量造成任何重大影響。以及是否需要改變產品設計來因應？

No, I'll keep it simple, no. There was no impact. We don't write that kind of accident and health that you're imagining in Singapore. Remember, we write supplemental health. We don't write traditional major medical and typical hospitalization. That's not our business. And that's what the Singapore decree that you referenced was about. So, no impact to us there. It's not our game.

不，我簡單回答：沒有。沒有影響。我們在新加坡並不承作你所想像的那類意外與健康險。請記得，我們承作的是補充型健康保險。我們不做傳統的大型醫療險與典型住院醫療。那不是我們的業務。而你提到的新加坡命令正是針對那一類。所以對我們沒有影響。那不是我們的戰場。

And in Hong Kong, on the flows, I think there's an overreaction. First of all, we did not have an impact, and I don't expect an impact on Chubb going forward. I think there was an overreaction to the government and the regulator pronouncements and actions they took. They were really around, what I'll say, bad actors. Those who are abusing the system and the rules that are in place that allow capital flows north to south and allow for investment products in Hong Kong.

至於香港的流量，我認為市場反應過度。首先，我們沒有受到影響，而且我也不預期未來會對Chubb造成影響。我認為外界對政府與監管機關的聲明以及他們採取的行動反應過度。那些措施主要是針對我所說的「不良行為者」。也就是濫用現行制度與規則的人；這些規則允許資金由北向南流動，並允許在香港銷售投資型產品。

Thanks for that. And then just one follow-up. Taking a step back, you have got pretty sober views of marketing conditions, and I would say that's a pretty consistent perspective that I think you bring to looking at the market. I guess how -- and I would say, increasingly that feels a bit different in terms of potentially prospective views on profitability from some of your other competitors.

謝謝說明。再追問一個。退一步看，你對市場環境的看法相當審慎，而我覺得這也是你一貫看待市場的角度。但我想問的是——我覺得你的一些競爭對手在對未來獲利前景的看法上，似乎越來越不同。

I'm curious what they see that might be different than what you're seeing. And just how you're thinking about the distribution of outcomes as it pertains to the market today?

我很好奇他們看到的，是否有什麼與你所看到的不同。以及你如何看待當前市場的結果分布（可能情境）？

I can't -- I'm not in the heads of others, and I don't know what they're specifically looking at. We all face the same market conditions. And we all face the same realities. And so, I'm just going to -- I think it's just best, call it as you see it. I mean, this is what it is. And the results, people can use words, but the results speak for themselves.

我不可能——我不在別人的腦袋裡，也不知道他們具體在看什麼。我們都面對相同的市場條件。也都面對相同的現實。所以我只會——我認為最好的方式就是：你看到什麼就怎麼說。事情就是如此。結果如何，人們可以用各種說法，但結果會自己說話。

And I'm very confident. In spite of market conditions, which market is the market, in Chubb's ability to continue to produce outstanding results and to outperform, just given our -- which we've purposely built over so many years, the breadth of diversification globally and within product and commercial and consumer that really, despite commercial P&C conditions, gives us that leg up to outperform.

而且我非常有信心。儘管市場環境就是市場環境，我仍對Chubb持續創造卓越成果並跑贏同業的能力很有信心；這要歸功於我們——多年來刻意打造的——在全球、在產品面，以及在商業與消費者業務之間的多元化廣度。這種布局即使在商業財產與意外險（P&C）條件不佳時，也能讓我們更具優勢、得以超越。

So I'm going to call it as I see it, and I can't speak to what others are thinking or have to say.

所以我會就我所見直言，而無法替別人說他們在想什麼或要說什麼。

Mayer Shields, KBW.

Mayer Shields，KBW。

Great. Thanks so much, and good morning. In North America Commercial, it looks like seeded premiums were up a little bit more than 20% year over year. I was hoping you can give us a little color on the nature of the increasing reinsurance spend and where we would see that in future results.

很好。非常感謝，早安。在北美商業險方面，看起來分出保費（seeded premiums）年增略高於20%。我想請你多談一些增加再保支出的性質，以及未來我們會在結果中哪裡看到反映。

Yea. First of all, it's a variation, just it varies by line of business, and so there's some mix involved in there. But in certain areas, we are purposely reinsuring a bit more. You could imagine that in property, you could imagine that in certain areas of thin lines, as we've said before, and of course we are. And if there's a hungry market, at times, irrationally, it makes sense to us to feed the hungry.

是的。首先，這會因業務線而異，所以其中也有一些組合因素。但在某些領域，我們是刻意多做一些再保。你可以想像在財產險會如此，在某些我們之前提過的「薄線」領域也會如此，當然我們確實有這麼做。而如果市場很飢渴，有時甚至是不理性的飢渴，對我們而言，餵飽這個飢渴的市場是有意義的。

Okay. No, fair enough. Second question, maybe taking a step back. You've talked a lot about the upside of diversification. Would having a much bigger base of written reinsurance premiums be of strategic benefit?

了解。好，合理。第二個問題，可能再退一步。你談了很多多元化的上行效益。如果擁有更大規模的再保簽單保費基礎，是否具有策略上的好處？

You mean to grow our reinsurance business?

你的意思是要擴大我們的再保業務？

Yeah, either to grow it or (multiple speakers).

對，要嘛擴大它，或(多位講者同時發言)。

To buy or reinsure.

去收購或做再保。

Or to buy a bigger reinsurance platform than you currently write.

或者收購一個比你們目前承作規模更大的再保平台。

No, it makes zero sense.

不，那完全沒有意義。

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

好的，完美。謝謝。

You're welcome. I mean, I could have backed it further to you, Meyer. But I think you get it. No, that doesn't make any sense. Our flightbook goes in the other direction.

不客氣。我的意思是，我本來可以再多解釋一些給你，Meyer。但我想你明白了。不，那沒有任何意義。我們的方向是相反的。

Bob Huang, Morgan Stanley.

Bob Huang，摩根士丹利。

Hi, good morning. My first question is on the Overseas General insurance. If we look at the accident year loss ratio or recall the past five quarters, it's been improving fairly steadily. I think part of the press release talks about business mix in that business is improving.

嗨，早安。我的第一個問題是關於海外一般保險。如果我們看過去五個季度的事故年度損失率，它一直相當穩定地改善。我想新聞稿中有一部分提到該業務的業務組合正在改善。

Is it right to think that as you grow the Asia and Latin business faster than the European business, should we see like a natural improvement on accident year loss ratio? Is that the right way to think about it? I'm curious of your thoughts on that.

是否可以這樣理解：當你們亞洲與拉丁美洲業務的成長速度快於歐洲業務時，事故年度損失率應該會自然改善？這樣想對嗎？我想聽聽你的看法。

Yeah. The trend of improvement that you note is a trend, and it is a consequence of mix of business. Okay, consumer, and then within commercial, and consumer is accident and health, and a variety of personal lines, from auto to specialty personal lines, depending on the country we're in.

是的。你所注意到的改善趨勢確實是一個趨勢，而它是業務組合所帶來的結果。好，包含消費者業務，然後在商業險內部也是；而消費者業務包括意外與健康，以及各種個人險種，從汽車到特種個人險，取決於我們所在的國家。

And then within commercial, a greater mix shift towards mid and small than large. I think the way, though, that you think about geography is not exactly right. I would think within more of product, as I said it. We're growing mid and small in parts of Europe in a meaningful way. We're growing it in Latin America, not to the same degree. You got another Latin American countries, the volatility and the CAT exposure. And we're growing in Asia, of course.

而在商業險內部，組合也更多地往中小型客戶移動，而非大型客戶。不過，我認為你用地理區域來思考的方式不完全正確。我會更從產品面來思考，如我剛才所說。我們在歐洲部分地區以有意義的幅度成長中小型業務。我們在拉丁美洲也有成長，但程度沒有那麼高。拉丁美洲還有其他國家存在波動性與巨災（CAT）曝險。而我們當然也在亞洲成長。

And so, I wouldn't think about -- I agree, and you just get what I just said to you. Everything except, okay, Asia, Latin America versus Europe. I would disabuse you of that part.

所以，我不會那樣去想——我同意，而你就把我剛才對你說的話理解進去就好。除了，好吧，亞洲、拉丁美洲相對於歐洲這一點。我會糾正你對那部分的看法。

Okay, really helpful. Thank you for that. My second question is on North America personal line. Obviously, your personal line is different from everybody else's, and a lot of personal line characters are seeing pricing pressure. You're not really seeing that. Like how durable is your rate environment in your particular part of the personal line business? Can you maybe help us think about just the industry dynamics for your specific target market?

好的，真的很有幫助。謝謝你。我的第二個問題是關於北美個人險業務。顯然，你們的個人險和其他所有人都不一樣，而很多個人險業者正面臨定價壓力。你們似乎並沒有真的看到那種情況。像是，在你們所處的個人險細分領域裡，你們的費率環境有多耐久？你能否幫我們思考一下，針對你們特定目標市場的產業動態？

Yeah. First of all, I think most of the discussion that you're engaged in around personal lines in the United States is general market auto. And that is -- we're not active within that. And then to a degree, but a much lesser degree. General market homeowners, we are in the high-net-worth business where it is far more about the richness of coverage and the services you're capable of providing and the broad range of product because this is a spectrum of high-net-worth customer.

是的。首先，我認為你們在美國談論的多數個人險議題，都是一般市場的汽車保險。而那一塊——我們並沒有參與。然後在某種程度上，但程度小得多。一般市場的住宅險方面，我們是在高淨值客戶業務，重點更多在於保障範圍的豐富度、你能提供的服務，以及產品的廣度，因為高淨值客戶是一個光譜。

But the complexity of their insurance needs is the hallmark, regardless of where you are in that spectrum. And your ability to underwrite it and then, yes, to price it and to manage it. And then the other part of it that is just people miss is, they buy for the claim service and the richness of the claim service that you provide.

但無論你在那個光譜的哪個位置，他們保險需求的複雜性都是最顯著的特徵。而你承保的能力，然後，是的，定價與管理的能力。另外一個常被忽略的部分是：他們購買是為了理賠服務，以及你所提供理賠服務的豐富度。

It's not a matter of did you just pay them an amount of money because they had a loss. They want to be put back in the condition they were in before the loss. Imagine an antique home. Imagine a specially designed home in a CAT-exposed area. Gets very expensive, very technical, hard to manage. Imagine the sensitivity around their liability claims. They're buying for a lot more than price, and your ability to get paid adequately, we've improved.

這不是你是否只是因為他們發生損失就付給他們一筆錢的問題。他們希望被恢復到損失發生前的狀態。想像一棟古董老宅。想像一棟位於災害（CAT）暴露區、特別設計的住宅。這會變得非常昂貴、非常技術性、也很難管理。再想像他們對責任理賠的敏感度。他們購買的遠不只是價格，而我們在獲得足夠保費補償的能力上，已經有所改善。

And if you look at our loss ratio over years, it's not simply about rate increase, it's the complexity in our actual rating algorithms and our risk selection and applying rate against exposure in a far more sophisticated manner.

如果你看我們多年來的損失率，這不只是費率上調的問題，而是我們實際的定價演算法、風險篩選，以及以更精密的方式把費率套用到曝險之上的複雜度。

And by the way, that's one example of use of technology. And that continues to evolve and will continue to evolve. So I feel quite confident. And in the future, and by the way, I am the biggest fan of this wonderful franchise that we have.

順帶一提，那就是科技應用的一個例子。而且它持續在演進，未來也會繼續演進。所以我相當有信心。而且展望未來，順帶一提，我是我們這個精彩特許經營（franchise）的最大粉絲。

Tracy Benguigui, Wolfe Research.

Tracy Benguigui，Wolfe Research。

Thank you. Good morning. It feels like there's a lower barrier of entry in a way for large accounts since London insurers are getting into US casualty, MGAs are disrupting property. So maybe a higher barrier for small to middle market in a way. We're small commercial, you really need a strong field operation setup. Is it fair to say that's something you inherited from Legacy Chubb?

謝謝。早安。感覺在大型帳戶方面，進入門檻在某種程度上更低，因為倫敦的保險公司正在切入美國責任險，而 MGA 正在顛覆財產險。所以某種程度上，小到中型市場的門檻反而更高。做小型商業保險，你真的需要很強的外勤營運架構。可以說那是你們從舊 Chubb 繼承來的嗎？

And since you had such remarkable growth in small to middle market this quarter, can you touch on the strength of your field operations or if I'm on to something regarding that competitive moat?

而且你們本季在小到中型市場成長非常亮眼，你能談談你們外勤營運的強項，或者我對於那個競爭護城河的理解是否正確嗎？

Thank you. And Tracy, thanks for the question. Inherited from Legacy Chubb. When we put ACE and Chubb together, which is about 11 years ago now, it was putting together, in essence. A brokerage, large account, specialty player, and I'm restricting that to the United States because it was a global player and with large accident and health and growing personal lines. With an agency-based middle-market, small, much less small, but middle market and specialty and high net worth player, US dominated.

謝謝。Tracy，也謝謝你的問題。確實是從舊 Chubb 繼承而來。當我們把 ACE 和 Chubb 合併在一起——現在大約是 11 年前——本質上是把以下兩者結合起來：一家以經紀通路、大型帳戶、專業險為主的業者（我把範圍限定在美國，因為它在全球也是業者），並且在大型意外與健康險以及成長中的個人險方面具規模；再加上一家以代理通路為主的中型市場（小型相對少一些，但以中型市場為主）、專業險與高淨值客戶業者，且以美國為主。

And the ability to put those two together, agency and brokerage, very different cultures. Together under one roof and have one unified strategy and one benefit from the other, which each brought skills to the table. That was the thesis. And frankly, I think it's proven just to be a wonderful combination and what a powerhouse franchise.

把這兩者結合的能力——代理與經紀，文化非常不同——在同一屋簷下形成一個統一策略，並讓彼此互相受益，因為雙方都帶來了各自的技能。那就是當時的論點。坦白說，我認為它已被證明是一個非常精彩的組合，真是一個強大的旗艦特許經營。

And mid and small, and we've grown small, have benefited significantly from that, broadening the product capability of that agency business, broadening our appetite and our ambition to move into small commercial and lower middle market, mixing of skills of people between the two. That has just burnished that franchise.

而中型與小型市場——我們也在小型市場成長——都從中顯著受益：擴大了那個代理通路業務的產品能力，擴大了我們進入小型商業與較低端中型市場的承保胃納與企圖心，並且讓兩邊的人才技能互相融合。這些都讓那個特許經營更為增色。

Our branch operations in the reach that you referenced, but along with technology, as it takes hold and emerges, it allows us to reach in a cost-effective way the broadest range of distribution. Not just the very large players in distribution who are important partners. But all forms of distribution, small brokers and agents and to do it effectively, our own in-house wholesaler that can serve us on their behalf, all that is coming to play.

我們的分支機構營運具備你所提到的觸及範圍；再加上科技，隨著它落地並逐步成熟，讓我們能以具成本效益的方式觸及最廣泛的通路。不只是通路中非常大型的業者——他們是重要夥伴——而是所有形式的通路：小型經紀人與代理人；並且能有效地做到這點；我們也有自家的內部批發通路（wholesaler）可代表他們為我們服務——這些都正在發揮作用。

And then with technology, our ability and one of the hallmarks of Chubb, which we are the pioneers of it, is industry practices. We actually, in the middle market, deliver discrete product, discrete coverages that are tailored to actually the needs of very specific industries. It's not some marketing gimmick.

再者，透過科技，我們的能力——而 Chubb 的一個標誌性特點（我們是這方面的先驅）——是產業化的作法。我們在中型市場實際上提供「離散」的產品與「離散」的保障，並依非常特定產業的需求量身打造。這不是什麼行銷噱頭。

And where people are trained to be expert in that area, where engineering is trained to be expert in that area. And to focus on those industries along with product, along with the distribution reach, that's what creates this unique powerhouse in mid and small, and there are only a few of us who have that capability.

我們的人員會被訓練成為該領域的專家，工程團隊也會被訓練成為該領域的專家。並且聚焦那些產業，再結合產品、再結合通路觸及，這就是在中型與小型市場打造出這個獨特強權的原因，而具備這種能力的公司只有少數幾家。

Excellent. Can you also unpack your comments a bit more on soft market conditions spreading to certain areas of casualty? Just my own observation, it feels like hard pricing really is a commercial auto story as excess casualty also includes auto. Do you share that view?

很好。你也能更進一步拆解你對於「軟市」狀況擴散到某些責任險領域的評論嗎？就我自己的觀察，強勢定價似乎真的主要是商業車險的故事，因為超額責任險也包含汽車曝險。你同意這個看法嗎？

I'm not sure I understood the last part of what you just said. You said comment on casualty. And then you said something about hard market and auto?

我不確定我理解你剛才最後那部分的意思。你說評論責任險。然後你又提到強勢市場和汽車？

Yeah. Okay. Sorry. Let me just rephrase. So the areas that we're seeing the most hardening on casualty is either commercial auto or excess casualty. And within excess casualty, that also includes commercial auto. So I'm curious if it's really a commercial auto story on the pricing side for casualty?

對。好的。抱歉。我重新表述一下。我們看到責任險最明顯的硬化領域，要嘛是商業車險，要嘛是超額責任險。而在超額責任險裡，也包含商業車險。所以我想了解，責任險在定價面上，是否其實主要就是商業車險的故事？

No, it's across casualty. My comment about casualty stands that numerous areas, not all, but most areas of casualty, rate is, at this moment, not keeping pace with lost costs. And I impact, lost costs. And this notion that somehow lost costs are becoming more benign, I'm not sure where that notion comes from, but it seems to me to just be talk.

不是，是整個責任險都如此。我對責任險的評論仍然成立：責任險的許多領域——不是全部，但大多數——目前費率跟不上損失成本。我指的是損失成本。而那種認為損失成本正在變得更溫和的說法，我不確定是從哪裡來的，但在我看來那只是說說而已。

There is zero evidence across the industry that lost costs have abated. They're continuing to inflate at a steady rate. And I think there's an issue in the minds of maybe in the investing community that somehow steady means improving. They're not accelerating. They're increasing at a steady rate. Don't confuse the two.

整個產業沒有任何證據顯示損失成本已經趨緩。它們仍在以穩定的速度持續通膨上升。我認為投資圈的某些人心裡可能有個問題：好像「穩定」就代表「改善」。它們沒有在加速。它們是在以穩定的速度上升。不要把兩者混為一談。

And then what the results look like by in casualty, well, it varies by area of the business, et cetera. And whether there's room or there's not room and to be more competitive in that, I won't go any further than that.

然後就意外險而言，結果會呈現什麼樣貌，嗯，會因業務領域等而有所不同。至於是否還有空間、或沒有空間去提升競爭力，我就不再多談了。

Rob Cox, Goldman Sachs.

Rob Cox，高盛。

Yeah, I just wanted to ask on small and middle. I'm just curious, I noticed the growth acceleration in the quarter. Curious if you feel like technology is breaking down any of the historic incumbent advantage in that market?

是的，我只是想問一下小型與中型（市場）。我只是好奇，我注意到本季成長有加速。想請教你是否覺得科技正在削弱該市場中歷史上既有業者的優勢？

In which market? Small middle. Whether technology is big. Look, I think that technology, but data and scale and size and breadth of capability that brings you and insight, is a competitive advantage. And I think it's a competitive advantage that if these things play out over years. And I've said it before, I think it's a that's a structural secular advantage.

哪一個市場？小型與中型。科技是否很重要。你看，我認為科技——但更重要的是資料、規模、體量與能力廣度所帶來的洞察——是一種競爭優勢。而且我認為，這種競爭優勢會在多年後逐步顯現。我以前也說過，我認為那是一種結構性、長期的優勢。

Got it. Thank you. And then I just wanted to ask on Europe, I think the growth was a little bit lighter there this quarter. Is there any economic disruption that you see expanding out from the Middle East conflict that worked into those numbers? And just curious if you could size how you're thinking about underwriting risks and potential opportunities from the Middle East as well?

了解。謝謝。另外我想問歐洲，我記得本季那邊的成長稍微弱一些。你是否看到中東衝突帶來的任何經濟擾動正在擴散，並反映在那些數字裡？也想請你量化一下，你如何看待中東相關的承保風險與潛在機會？

No. To answer your question directly, I don't notice an economic impact from the Middle East that impact the quarter. The quarter was just variability and based on competitive market and London versus the continent, less so, large versus mid and small, and just the mix of all of that and variability in the quarter.

沒有。直接回答你的問題，我沒有注意到中東對本季造成任何經濟面的影響。本季只是波動性，取決於競爭市場狀況、倫敦相對於歐陸（市場）的差異（歐陸較少）、大型相對於中型與小型，以及所有這些組合與本季的波動。

And looking out, I remain, and I'm quite bullish on our opportunities in Europe. We've got a large installed base, we have numerous areas of strategic focus that we are actively engaged in, and we're just beavering away growing the business. We have an outstanding business on the continent and in the UK, so far beyond a London wholesale business.

展望未來，我仍然——而且我對我們在歐洲的機會相當看多。我們有龐大的既有客戶基礎，也有多個策略重點領域正在積極投入，我們就是持續踏實地把業務做大。我們在歐陸與英國都有非常出色的業務，遠不只是倫敦的批發業務。

David Moatmaden, Evercore.

David Moatmaden，Evercore。

Just a question on the lost cost trends in North America commercial. So I heard you on the long tail lines. It doesn't sound like you've changed anything there, still being conservative. I'm wondering what you're seeing on the shorter tail lines. The favorable development has been pretty strong there. And are you thinking about making any changes there potentially? I'm just looking at some of your peers potentially making changes there.

想問一下北美商業險的損失成本趨勢。我聽到你談到長尾險種。聽起來你們那邊沒有改變任何作法，仍然保持保守。我想知道你們在短尾險種看到什麼情況。那邊的有利發展一直相當強勁。你們是否在考慮可能做一些調整？我只是看到你們一些同業可能在那邊做調整。

Yeah, shorter tail, it's steady. We're not seeing a change. It's bouncing around the 4.5%. And that is pretty steady. The only thing I'll tell you about the long tail that I cited, those aren't conservative numbers, those are actual trends as we observe them. Longer-term and shorter term, and we got a lot of data.

是的，短尾方面很穩定。我們沒有看到變化。大概在4.5%上下波動。而且相當穩定。至於我提到的長尾部分，我要說的是，那些不是保守估計的數字，而是我們觀察到的實際趨勢。不論長期或短期，我們都有大量資料。

And by the way, we triangulate it with those who observe industry. They're not specific to job.

順帶一提，我們也會與觀察產業的人士交叉驗證。那不是特定於Chubb。

Got it. That's helpful. And then maybe just looking at the stellar accident year loss ratio ex-CAT within North America Commercial. I mean, you guys had called out, I think, in the 10-Q last quarter, just the adverse mix impact. Just from less property as driving that deterioration. I guess I'm wondering, as we see the mix shift more towards middle market, should that have a bigger offset as we go forward? Just thinking about the margins here, which remain stellar, but obviously, the pricing is under pressure.

了解。這很有幫助。另外，看看北美商業險中、扣除巨災（CAT）後非常亮眼的事故年度損失率。我的意思是，你們在上一季的10-Q裡有提到，我記得是，不利的組合影響。主要是因為財產險占比降低而導致惡化。我想問的是，隨著組合更多轉向中型市場，未來是否會有更大的抵銷效果？我是在想這裡的利潤率，仍然非常亮眼，但顯然定價正承受壓力。

Let me answer it like this to you. Combined ratio. For Chubb, and let's look at Chubb. Our combined ratio, it's a hallmark. It's an expression of who we are. We're an underwriting company. Volatility aside, CATs and large events, our combined ratios are sustainable. Obviously within a reasonable range of variability, but they're sustainable. That's the beauty of the size and scale of the company.

我這樣回答你。綜合率。對Chubb而言——我們就看Chubb。我們的綜合率是一個標誌。它反映了我們是誰。我們是一家承保公司。撇開波動性、巨災與大型事件不談，我們的綜合率是可持續的。當然是在合理的波動範圍內，但它是可持續的。這就是公司規模與體量的美妙之處。

Our diverse portfolio of quality businesses, our underwriting focus, and that's within North America, and then more broadly across job. That's the whole point. The bigger the portfolio, the greater the diversification of it, the less variability and the greater the stability of it overall. As you start breaking down into this little piece or that little piece, then variability becomes greater.

我們多元且高品質的業務組合、我們的承保聚焦——這在北美如此，放到更廣泛的Chubb亦然。這就是重點。投資組合越大、分散度越高，整體波動就越小、穩定性就越高。當你開始拆解到這一小塊或那一小塊時，波動性就會變得更大。

And then add to that, our employment of tech and AI and the insights and efficiencies, we are and will gain. Those also support combined ratio. So I feel confident about it.

再加上我們運用科技與AI，以及我們正在並將會獲得的洞察與效率。這些也都支撐綜合率。所以我對此很有信心。

Gregory Peters, Raymond James.

Gregory Peters，Raymond James。

Good morning. So a couple of things. Both in your press release and in your comments, Evan, you talk about how you're confident in the ability to outperform and generate strong growth in operating earnings and EPS and double-digit growth and tangible book value.

早安。有幾點。無論在新聞稿或你的評論中，Evan，你都提到你對於能夠跑贏同業、並在營運盈餘與EPS上實現強勁成長、雙位數成長，以及有形帳面價值的成長很有信心。

With the pricing competition that you're talking about and its effect on your top line, maybe you could bridge the gap on how you think the organization's position to continue to generate strong EPS growth.

在你所談到的定價競爭及其對營收的影響之下，也許你可以幫我們銜接一下，你如何看待組織仍能持續帶來強勁EPS成長的定位？

Absolutely. And I am aware and mindful of the chatter since last night around the one-word change, we made. It really is Kremlin watchers. And so let me take all that and wrap it into and create the right context here. Look, for many quarters, including the first half of this year, I'd start with that, we've produced double-digit EPS growth. This quarter alone, over 18%, simply outstanding.

當然可以。而且我也注意到、並留意到，從昨晚開始市場對我們做的一個字的改動有不少議論。那真的有點像「克里姆林宮觀察家」式的解讀。所以我把這些都納入，並在這裡建立正確的脈絡。你看，很多個季度以來——包括今年上半年，我先從這點說起——我們都做出了雙位數的EPS成長。單就本季而言，超過18%，非常出色。

My outlook statement is not guidance. And it's looking out beyond the next few quarters to simply give a directional sense over a longer period. And so, when you take that, given market conditions, we've simply broadened the range of outcomes modestly, and they include double-digit, by the way.

我的展望陳述不是指引（guidance）。它是看向未來、超越接下來幾個季度，僅僅是為了在更長期間提供一個方向性的感受。因此，在市場條件之下，我們只是把可能結果的區間稍微放寬，而其中也包含雙位數，順帶一提。

Within that of EPS, softening commercial P&C market conditions balanced against our global mix of businesses, including our mix of business within North America, think mid and small commercial and personal lines, our vast international and consumer, our life, our invested asset and our capital management.

在EPS方面，商業財產與意外險（P&C）市場環境轉趨疲軟，與我們全球業務組合相互平衡；包括我們在北美的業務組合——想想中型與小型商業險與個人險——我們龐大的國際與消費者業務、我們的壽險、我們的投資資產，以及我們的資本管理。

We have many sources and handles to pull. I am quite confident, in fact, I am confident in our ability to produce very strong and potentially double-digit EPS growth and will produce strong earnings growth as we go forward.

我們有很多來源與槓桿可以運用。我相當有信心——事實上，我對我們有能力實現非常強勁、甚至可能是雙位數的EPS成長很有信心，而且我們未來也會持續帶來強勁的獲利成長。

Thank you. I've asked this question of one or two others, and I think it's appropriate for you, for your company as well. There's been a bunch of stories that have hit the press over the last couple of months about the rising costs of technology, thinking about token costs and things like that.

謝謝。我也問過一兩家公司這個問題，我覺得對你們公司也很適合。過去幾個月媒體有不少報導談到科技成本上升，像是token成本之類的。

And with quite an impact on the market, you spoke last year about using technology to generate material savings for your organization over the middle term. So I'm just curious how you reconcile for us the rising cost of technology deployment versus the ability to harvest those savings and generate improving margins?

而且對市場造成相當影響。你去年談到運用科技在中期為組織帶來實質節省。所以我想請教，你如何幫我們調和：科技部署成本上升，與你們仍能收割這些節省、並帶來利潤率改善的能力？

Yeah. First of all, the chatter that you've been reading about, what you've been reading, I think the investing community broadly ought to put it in context. It's more that token usage, is really about the vast token usage among tech companies. And those that are AI and tech companies, they use vast amounts in model development.

是的。首先，關於你一直在讀到的那些議論、你所看到的內容，我認為投資界整體應該把它放在脈絡中理解。這更多是關於科技公司之間龐大的代幣使用量。而那些AI與科技公司在模型開發上會使用大量代幣。

That's not applying, and that comment is not really applying to general businesses. We know our token usage. We know our token costs. Frankly, it's within our economic model and how we measure expenses. Our token costs and the usage that way is a fraction, a minor fraction relative to the efficiencies, and the insights and the improvements that we gain. And we measure it in hard dollars. This is not liberal arts around here.

那並不適用，而且那個評論其實並不適用於一般企業。我們了解我們的代幣使用量。我們了解我們的代幣成本。坦白說，這在我們的經濟模型之內，也在我們衡量費用的方式之內。我們的代幣成本與那樣的使用量，相較於我們獲得的效率、洞見與改善，只是一小部分、很小的一部分。而且我們用實打實的美元來衡量。這裡不是在談人文學科那一套。

Andrew Kligerman, TD Cowen.

Andrew Kligerman，TD Cowen。

Hey, good morning. So looking at the net written premium, you mentioned that there's continued softness in financial lines and flat to down pricing we're seeing in workers' comp. Yet financial lines net written was up 2.6% and work comp up 6.2% net written. So I'm curious where you might be seeing the opportunities in those lines. And that you're confident in the performance going forward there?

嗨，早安。就淨簽單保費來看，你提到金融線仍持續疲軟，而我們在勞工補償看到的費率是持平到下滑。但金融線淨簽單成長了2.6%，勞工補償淨簽單成長了6.2%。所以我想了解，你可能在哪些細分領域看到機會。以及你對這些業務線未來表現仍有信心的原因？

Sure. First of all, in comp, remember, we play it up and down the stack from large company where we are a market leader, mid and small, where we are market leaders. And so, it will vary by state, by industry, by type of business. And so, it's selection within there. And exposure changes, think payrolls, think number of employees, those bounce around and that adds or subtracts from your premium revenue growth each quarter.

當然。首先，在勞工補償方面，請記得我們從大型企業到中小型企業都做，且在大型企業我們是市場領導者，在中小型我們也是市場領導者。因此會因州別、產業別、業務型態而有所不同。所以關鍵在於其中的風險選擇。另外曝險也會變動，例如薪資總額、員工人數，這些會上下波動，並在每一季對你的保費收入成長造成加分或扣分。

In financial lines, financial lines are a broad set of businesses. And there again, we play in very large account, and we play in small and mid, and it's not just public D&O. It's private D&O, it's not-for-profit D&O, it's E&O and a lot of broad classes of E&O. Fidelity, which is a form of surety, but different than that.

在金融線方面，金融線涵蓋很廣的一組業務。同樣地，我們既做非常大型的帳戶，也做中小型帳戶，而且不只是上市公司董監責任險（D&O）。還包括非上市公司D&O、非營利機構D&O、專業責任險（E&O）以及許多廣泛類別的E&O。還有忠誠保險（Fidelity），它是一種保證保險的形式，但又不完全相同。

Fidelity is part of financial lines. And we put cyber as part of our wrap-up in financial lines. So it's across a broad range. While we've been -- and I've been vocal that not-for-profit, private D&O is very soft and overly soft, where the underwriting doesn't make sense.

忠誠保險屬於金融線的一部分。我們也把網路保險納入金融線的整體組合中。所以它橫跨很廣的範圍。雖然我們一直——而且我也一直直言——非營利、非上市D&O非常疲軟，甚至過度疲軟，以致核保在經濟上不合理。

And pricing, there are other areas where it remains adequate. And it's up and down the street, it varies.

但在定價方面，仍有其他領域是足夠的。而且各家情況不同，差異很大。

Yes, very much so, the diversification is really helping here. And just looking at your Chubb Benefits business, which is a relatively small portion of life, but it was up 14%. So do you, Evan, do you see this business just continuing to grow organically? Or is it something that you think might need some inorganic investment to kind of accelerate it?

是的，確實如此，多元化在這裡幫了很大的忙。再看你們的Chubb Benefits業務，它在壽險中占比相對小，但成長了14%。所以，Evan，你認為這項業務會持續以內生成長嗎？還是你覺得可能需要一些外延式投資來加速成長？

Look, we've been at it in a steady way for over five years now. And thank you for that question. It divides into two pieces. Chubb Benefits. The part that works very closely through the brokerage distribution with our -- predominantly with our mid and small P&C commercial colleagues, where we're selling all lines. And that is a very successful way of distributing.

你看，我們穩健地做這件事已經超過五年了。也謝謝你這個問題。它可以分成兩個部分。Chubb Benefits。其中一部分是透過經紀通路分銷，並與我們——主要是與我們中小型產險（P&C）商業保險的同仁密切合作，我們在那裡銷售全線產品。而那是一種非常成功的分銷方式。

And then secondly, the old, combined agency force, we retooled it. And it is predominantly focused on small and lower middle market companies to sell worksite benefits and install them. We've invested a lot in distribution, in product, but particularly, in technology and our ability to deliver product and service it right at the desktop of individual employees and to do it in a frictionless way.

第二部分是原本的合併代理人隊伍，我們已經重新調整。它主要聚焦於小型與中低階中型市場公司，銷售職場福利保險並完成導入。我們在通路與產品上投入很多，但尤其是在科技，以及我們把產品交付與服務直接帶到每位員工桌面端、並以無摩擦方式完成的能力上投入很多。

We're focused on growing organically. We just see a tremendous opportunity to continue growing that business at double-digits, and that's our focus. And you know what, overtime, as I look at it, over the next number of years, it will emerge as a more significant contributor to Chubb's results top and bottom line.

我們專注於內生成長。我們看到非常巨大的機會，讓這項業務持續以兩位數成長，這就是我們的重點。而且你知道，隨著時間推進，從未來幾年來看，它將會成為對Chubb業績（營收與獲利）更重要的貢獻者。

Alex Scott, Barclays.

Alex Scott，Barclays。

Ask one on the PayDo incurred. I think before the pandemic averaged something in the high 90s, just looking at it's still running at 90, I know some of that's from a bit more growth and just a natural lag. But could you talk about why that would be running? I'm just talking about overall PayDo incurred, and just your views on why that's still continuing to run well below historical levels?

我想問一個關於PayDo已發生損失（incurred） 的問題。我記得疫情前平均大概在90多的高段；現在看起來仍在90左右。我知道其中一部分可能來自成長較多以及自然的時間落差。但你能談談為什麼會維持在這個水準嗎？我指的是整體PayDo已發生損失，以及你對它為何仍持續明顯低於歷史水準的看法？

Why it's continuing to run as it is?

你是問為什麼它會持續維持目前這樣的水準？

Yeah, just the fact that it's running at 90 versus, I think, pre-COVID was, I think, averaged around 97. So I'm just trying to understand.

對，就是它在90左右，而我記得COVID之前平均大概在97左右。所以我想理解一下。

I think that's excellent. It speaks to, [some] overall, the strength of our reserves.

我覺得這個問題非常好。這反映了——整體而言——我們準備金的強勁。

Okay. All right. Next one, capital. Talk as much about the excess capital this quarter, but I mean, you guys have had stellar earnings, obviously, it's building. How should we think about the current levels there and the different options you're looking at for deployment and what that could mean to the CPS growth that we're all focused on?

好的。好。下一個，資本。這一季談了很多超額資本，但你們的獲利表現非常亮眼，顯然資本在累積。我們應該如何看待目前的水準，以及你們在部署資本方面正在評估的不同選項？這對我們都很關注的每股核心盈餘（CPS）成長可能意味著什麼？

Sure. I'll take that one. It's Peter. Look, nothing's changed in our framework. We're deploying capital accretively and underwriting and investments. We'll continue to return capital through dividends, repurchases. You've seen us do that over time, balanced by opportunity. So nothing's really changed.

當然。這題我來回答。我是Peter。你看，我們的框架沒有任何改變。我們會以增厚價值（accretive）的方式在核保與投資上部署資本。我們也會持續透過股利與庫藏股回購來回饋資本。你們也看到我們長期以來一直這麼做，同時會依機會做平衡。所以真的沒有什麼改變。

Thank you. And that's all the time we have for our Q&A session. I'll now turn the conference back over to Susan Spivak for closing remarks.

謝謝。我們的問答時間就到這裡。接下來我把電話會議交回給Susan Spivak做結語。

Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. If you have any follow-up questions, we'll be around to take your calls. Enjoy the day, and again, thank you.

謝謝各位今天加入我們。如果你們有任何後續問題，我們會在這裡接聽你們的來電。祝各位有美好的一天，再次謝謝。

Thank you. That concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.

謝謝。今天的電話會議到此結束。你們現在可以掛線。