Skyward Specialty Insurance Group Inc (SKWD) 2026 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the first quarter 2026 Skyward Specialty earnings conference call. (Operator Instructions) Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would like now to turn the conference over to Natalie Schoolcraft, Senior Vice President. Please go ahead.

各位女士、先生，感謝您稍候。歡迎參加 Skyward Specialty 2026 年第一季財報電話會議。（接線員指示）請注意，今天的會議將被錄音。現在我想把會議交給資深副總裁 Natalie Schoolcraft。請開始。

Thank you, Gina. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our first quarter 2026 earnings conference call. Today, I am joined by our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Robinson; and Chief Financial Officer, Mark Haushill.

謝謝你，Gina。各位早安，歡迎參加我們 2026 年第一季財報電話會議。今天與會的還有我們的董事長兼執行長 Andrew Robinson，以及財務長 Mark Haushill。

We will begin the call today with our prepared remarks, and then we will open the lines for questions. Our comments may include forward-looking statements, which, by their nature, involve a number of risk factors and uncertainties, which may affect future financial performance.

我們今天將先進行事先準備的發言，接著開放提問。我們的評論可能包含前瞻性陳述；此類陳述本質上涉及多項風險因素與不確定性，可能影響未來的財務表現。

Such risk factors may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in our projections or forward-looking statements. These types of factors are discussed in our press release as well as in our 10-K that was previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

這些風險因素可能導致實際結果與我們的預測或前瞻性陳述所載內容出現重大差異。此類因素已在我們的新聞稿以及先前向美國證券交易委員會（SEC）提交的 10-K 年報中討論。

Financial schedules containing reconciliations of certain non-GAAP measures, along with other supplemental financial schedules are included as part of our press release and available on our website under the Investors section. With that, I will turn the call over to Andrew.

包含特定非 GAAP 指標調節表的財務附表，以及其他補充財務附表，均已納入我們的新聞稿，並可於我們網站「投資人」專區取得。接下來，我把電話交給 Andrew。

Thank you, Natalie. Good morning, and thank you for joining us. This quarter marks our first reporting at Skyward Group, inclusive of both the Skyward Specialty and Apollo segments. Our results reflect an excellent start as a combined company. Mark will cover the quarter in detail in a moment, but I'll start our call today with a few highlights.

謝謝你，Natalie。各位早安，感謝各位加入。本季是我們以 Skyward Group 名義首次對外報告，涵蓋 Skyward Specialty 與 Apollo 兩個營運分部。我們的結果反映出作為合併公司的一個極佳開端。Mark 稍後會詳細說明本季表現，但我先分享幾個重點。

First quarter diluted operating EPS improved to $1.25 from $0.90 a share in the same quarter last year, an impressive increase of 39%, reflecting both the strong embedded earnings growth of Skyward Specialty and the realized accretion from the Apollo acquisition. Our annualized operating return on equity was an outstanding 20%. Our book value per share grew to $27.50, which is up 10% over the prior quarter. Altogether, these results reflect strong underlying earnings momentum and disciplined capital deployment, positioning us well to continue to deliver consistent top-quartile returns for our shareholders. Our growth in gross written premiums on a pro forma basis was up 10% over the prior year.

第一季稀釋後營運每股盈餘（Operating EPS）由去年同期的每股 0.90 美元提升至 1.25 美元，增幅達 39%，表現亮眼，反映 Skyward Specialty 強勁的內生獲利成長，以及收購 Apollo 所帶來的實現增厚效益。我們年化營運股東權益報酬率（ROE）高達 20%。每股帳面價值成長至 27.50 美元，較前一季上升 10%。整體而言，這些結果反映出強勁的基本面獲利動能與審慎的資本配置，使我們具備良好條件，持續為股東提供穩定的同業前四分位數回報。我們以備考（pro forma）基礎計算的簽單保費總額（GWP）成長率較去年增加 10%。

Managed premiums were up 20% on a pro forma basis to $968 million. And as a reminder, managed premiums include a combination of group premiums and premiums supported by third-party capital providers. The underlying 49% growth in gross written premiums driving the fee aspect of Apollo's business will be an important and new earnings growth driver as we look out into the future. As is widely discussed, market conditions are increasingly challenging for significant parts of the P&C sector. Our portfolio construction is genuinely unique amongst the P&C universe in that over 50% of the Skyward Group's business, now inclusive of Syndicate 1971, or iBOT, our digital economy syndicate, is in markets less exposed to the P&C cycles.

以備考基礎計算，管理保費（managed premiums）成長 20% 至 9.68 億美元。提醒各位，管理保費包含團體保費以及由第三方資本提供者支持的保費組合。推動 Apollo 業務費用收入面的簽單保費總額 49% 的內生成長，將在未來成為重要且新的獲利成長動能。如同廣泛討論的，財產與意外險（P&C）產業多個領域的市場環境正日益嚴峻。我們的投資組合建構在 P&C 產業中確實獨樹一幟：Skyward Group 的業務（現已包含 1971 承保團 Syndicate 1971，亦即 iBOT，我們的數位經濟承保團）有超過 50% 位於較不受 P&C 景氣循環影響的市場。

Together with our niche-focused strategy and outstanding execution, Skyward Group has never been better positioned to deliver sustained top-quartile shareholder value and continued earnings growth. With that, I'll turn the call over to Mark to provide the financial details for the quarter. Mark?

結合我們聚焦利基市場的策略與卓越的執行力，Skyward Group 從未像現在這樣具備優勢，能夠持續為股東創造同業前四分位數的價值並推動獲利成長。接下來我把電話交給 Mark，請他提供本季的財務細節。Mark？

Thank you, Andrew, and good morning, everyone. As Andrew outlined, our first quarter reflects a successful start as a combined company, reporting net income of $50 million and operating income of $57 million. Diluted operating earnings per share was $1.25, up 39% year-over-year. Underwriting income totaled $52 million, and the combined ratio was 89.5, inclusive of 1.8 points of catastrophe losses. Ex-cat combined ratio was 87.7%, reflecting strong underlying loss performance and disciplined expense management.

謝謝你，Andrew，各位早安。如 Andrew 所述，我們第一季反映出作為合併公司的一個成功開端：淨利為 5,000 萬美元，營運利益為 5,700 萬美元。稀釋後營運每股盈餘為 1.25 美元，年增 39%。承保利益合計 5,200 萬美元，綜合率為 89.5，其中包含 1.8 個點的巨災損失。扣除巨災（ex-cat）後的綜合率為 87.7%，反映強勁的基本損失表現與嚴謹的費用管理。

Annualized operating ROE was 20.3%, underscoring the earnings power of the combined group. Gross written premiums were $668 million, up approximately 10% on a pro forma basis, driven by 9% growth in Skyward Specialty and 9% growth in Apollo. Overall growth was driven by Skyward Specialty's accident & health, credit and surety, global agriculture and specialty programs divisions and Apollo Syndicate 1969, our multi-class specialty syndicate. As Andrew emphasized, managed premiums, which include gross written premiums from which we derive fees are an important metric for our business going forward. Managed premiums totaled $968 million, up approximately 20% year-over-year on a pro forma basis, including fee-generating premiums of $300 million, which increased 49%.

年化營運 ROE 為 20.3%，凸顯合併後集團的獲利能力。簽單保費總額為 6.68 億美元，以備考基礎計算約成長 10%，其中 Skyward Specialty 成長 9%，Apollo 亦成長 9%。整體成長主要來自 Skyward Specialty 的意外與健康險（A&H）、信用與保證（credit and surety）、全球農業（global agriculture）與專業計畫（specialty programs）事業部，以及 Apollo 的 1969 承保團 Syndicate 1969（我們的多險種專業承保團）。如 Andrew 強調，管理保費（包含我們可從中取得費用的簽單保費總額）是我們未來業務的重要指標。管理保費合計 9.68 億美元，以備考基礎計算年增約 20%，其中可產生費用的保費為 3.00 億美元，成長 49%。

In this quarter, we generated $10 million in underwriting fees. This income stream is capital-light recurring and incremental to underwriting profit, and it represents a structurally important earnings growth lever as managed premium volume scales over time. With the addition of Apollo, we now report through 2 operating segments, Skyward Specialty and Apollo and a discrete corporate unit. The corporate unit includes investment results, holding company costs and enterprise-level functions that support both operating segments. The change improves transparency and provides clear visibility into the true segment level performance.

本季我們產生 1,000 萬美元的承保費用收入。此收入來源具備輕資本、可重複且可持續的特性，並且是在承保利潤之外的增量收入；隨著管理保費規模隨時間擴大，它將成為結構性重要的獲利成長槓桿。隨著 Apollo 的加入，我們目前以兩個營運分部（Skyward Specialty 與 Apollo）以及一個獨立的公司單位（corporate unit）進行揭露。公司單位包含投資結果、控股公司成本，以及支援兩個營運分部的企業層級職能。此變更提升透明度，並清楚呈現各分部的真實績效。

Skyward Specialty reported a combined ratio of 88.9 or 86.8 ex-cat, reflecting another period of solid underwriting performance and an improvement from the prior year quarter. The loss ratio of 62.7 includes 2.1 points of catastrophe losses from winter and convective storms. The non-cat loss ratio of 60.6 was in line with 2025 and reflects business mix shift as A&H and global agriculture make up a larger portion of our portfolio. Loss emergence was in line with expectations and no development was recognized. The expense ratio was 26.2, improving by over 0.5 point year-over-year, driven by continued operating efficiencies and business mix.

Skyward Specialty 的綜合率為 88.9，扣除巨災後為 86.8，反映又一段穩健的承保表現，且較去年同期改善。損失率為 62.7，其中包含冬季與對流風暴造成的 2.1 個點巨災損失。非巨災損失率為 60.6，與 2025 年一致，並反映業務組合變化，因 A&H 與全球農業在我們投資組合中的占比提高。損失釋出（loss emergence）符合預期，且未認列任何準備金發展（development）。費用率為 26.2，年減超過 0.5 個點，主要受惠於持續的營運效率提升與業務組合。

Turning to Apollo. The segment produced a combined ratio of 85.3, a strong start for the first quarter as part of Skyward Group. As Apollo has not historically reported quarterly results on a comparable US GAAP basis, we are not providing year-over-year comparisons. Apollo reported a non-cat loss ratio of 52.8, lower than full year expectations as a result of Q1 business mix and seasonality.

接著談 Apollo。該分部綜合率為 85.3，作為 Skyward Group 一員的第一季有一個強勁開局。由於 Apollo 過去並未以可比的美國 GAAP 基礎揭露季度結果，我們不提供年對年比較。Apollo 的非巨災損失率為 52.8，低於全年預期，主要因第一季業務組合與季節性因素所致。

Loss emergence in the quarter was in line with expectations. Apollo did not incur any cat losses in the quarter, and our full year cat expectations remain unchanged. The expense ratio of 32.5 is broadly in line with expectations. The $4 million of fee-based service expenses are excluded from the combined ratio, but included in operating income and support the scalability of the fee-earning part of the business. Turning to investments.

本季損失釋出符合預期。Apollo 本季未發生任何巨災損失，我們對全年巨災損失的預期維持不變。費用率 32.5 大致符合預期。4 百萬美元的費用型服務費用不納入綜合率計算，但計入營運利益，並支援業務中可賺取費用部分的可擴展性。接著談投資。

The portfolio now approximates $2.7 billion, of which 90% of the portfolio consists of fixed income and short-term investments. Net investment income was $27 million, an increase of $7.5 million year-over-year, driven primarily by a larger invested asset base as a result of the Apollo acquisition.

目前投資組合規模約為 27 億美元，其中 90% 為固定收益與短期投資。淨投資收益為 2,700 萬美元，年增 750 萬美元，主要由於收購 Apollo 後可投資資產基礎擴大。

Alternative and strategic investments continue to experience volatility, primarily due to marks on the underlying investments. These exposures represent a modest portion of total invested assets and the overall portfolio remains conservatively positioned.

另類與策略性投資仍持續出現波動，主要源自對底層投資的評價調整（mark）。這些曝險僅占總投資資產的一小部分，整體投資組合仍維持保守配置。

With the addition of Apollo, over $500 million of invested assets were added to the portfolio during the quarter, which contributed $5 million of net investment income, primarily in fixed income securities and short-term investments.

隨著 Apollo 的加入，本季投資組合新增超過 5 億美元的投資資產，貢獻 500 萬美元的淨投資收益，主要配置於固定收益證券與短期投資。

For the fixed income portfolio, we put $75 million to work at 5.5%. The embedded yield for the group portfolio was 5.3%. Turning to the balance sheet. Stockholders equity ended the quarter at $1.2 billion. Financial leverage was in line with expectations after the closing of the Apollo acquisition at 28%.

就固定收益投資組合而言，我們以 5.5% 的收益率投入 7,500 萬美元。集團投資組合的內含收益率（embedded yield）為 5.3%。接著談資產負債表。股東權益於季末為 12 億美元。Apollo 收購案完成後，財務槓桿率為 28%，符合預期。

As Andrew highlighted, book value per share was $27.50, representing a 31% increase over the prior 12 months. You will recall that on December 3, we provided guidance for 2026, and that guidance is unchanged. Now, I'll turn the call back over to Andrew.

如 Andrew 所強調，每股帳面價值為 27.50 美元，較前 12 個月增加 31%。各位應記得我們在 12 月 3 日提供了 2026 年的指引，而該指引維持不變。接下來我把電話交回給 Andrew。

Thank you, Mark. As Mark shared, our financial results for the quarter were again excellent. Our portfolio diversification, particularly in categories less exposed to the P&C cycle, again, served as a catalyst for strong top line performance, which in turn will continue to drive double-digit earnings growth. Notably, our increase in gross written premiums of 25% plus in A&H, credit and surety and ag are all in areas that are removed from the pressures of the broader P&C market. Simultaneously, we are maintaining our disciplined bottom line focus in other areas of our business that are currently experiencing softening market conditions or a challenging loss inflation backdrop.

謝謝你，Mark。如 Mark 所分享，我們本季的財務結果再次非常出色。我們的投資組合多元化，特別是在較不受 P&C 景氣循環影響的類別，再次成為推動強勁營收成長的催化劑，進而將持續帶動雙位數的獲利成長。值得注意的是，我們在 A&H、信用與保證以及農業（ag）等領域的簽單保費總額成長超過 25%，這些領域遠離更廣泛 P&C 市場的壓力。同時，對於目前正面臨市場走弱或損失通膨環境具挑戰性的其他業務領域，我們仍維持嚴謹的獲利底線管理。

Among small or mid-cap carriers in the public or private markets, there is no other company that has constructed such a well-diversified and cycle-resistant business portfolio. While only months into operating as a combined company, a number of important growth initiatives have been launched. This includes our proprietary insurance partnership for Uber's autonomous vehicle insurance program, the launch of our life sciences product using Lloyd's paper to serve US-domiciled companies with international exposure, and the 1/1 launch of Syndicate 1972, which is Apollo's internal reinsurance syndicate. I'll note that 1972 further provides strategic optionality for Skyward Specialty's outward reinsurance as we look to the future. John Burkhart, James Slaughter and several of our leaders are actively advancing a number of future shared growth initiatives, including opportunities in surety and the launch of iBOT America.

在公開或私募市場中的小型或中型承保公司之中，沒有任何其他公司建立了如此多元化且具抗循環性的業務組合。雖然作為合併後公司營運僅數月，我們已啟動多項重要的成長計畫。其中包括：我們為 Uber 自動駕駛車輛保險計畫所打造的專有保險合作夥伴關係；推出以勞合社承保能力（Lloyd's paper）為基礎的生命科學產品，以服務在美國設立但具有國際曝險的公司；以及於 1/1 推出 Syndicate 1972（1972 承保團），亦即 Apollo 的內部再保險承保團。我也要指出，展望未來，1972 亦為 Skyward Specialty 的對外再保險安排提供更多策略彈性。John Burkhart、James Slaughter 與我們多位領導團隊正積極推進多項未來共同成長計畫，包括保證保險（surety）機會以及 iBOT America 的推出。

These highlight only a few of the exciting developments that we will discuss as we begin to scale these initiatives in the quarters ahead. Turning to our operational metrics. For Skyward Specialty, pure rate moved up a bit to high single digits ex-global property and mid-single digits, including global property. Excluding our intentional actions in construction auto, retention was in the 70s, driven by the effects of the competitive property market across our portfolio. We continue to see strong submission growth, which was solidly in the teens again this quarter.

以上僅凸顯了幾項令人振奮的進展；隨著我們在未來幾季開始擴大這些計畫的規模，我們將進一步討論。接著看我們的營運指標。就 Skyward Specialty 而言，純費率（pure rate）略有上升：剔除全球財產險（ex-global property）後升至高個位數；包含全球財產險則為中個位數。若排除我們在建築車險（construction auto）上的刻意作為，續保率落在 70% 多，主要受我們整體組合中競爭激烈的財產險市場影響。我們持續看到強勁的投保申請（submission）成長，本季再度穩健達到十幾個百分點。

Apollo's risk-adjusted rate change ex-property was in the low-single digits. Apollo remains intently focused on rate adequacy to steer and maximize returns at the account and portfolio level. And like Skyward, excuse me, like Skyward Specialty, Apollo's diversified portfolio means that we are better positioned to capitalize on opportunities to defend our business in an evolving market. To wrap up, we had an outstanding quarter. It's clear that our niche strategy, our excellent execution, our portfolio construction, supplemented with a new fee engine is and will be a continued source of strong earnings growth and top-quartile financial performance into the future.

Apollo 的風險調整後費率變動（risk-adjusted rate change）在剔除財產險（ex-property）後為低個位數。Apollo 仍高度聚焦於費率充足性（rate adequacy），以在單一帳戶與整體投資組合層級引導並最大化報酬。並且如同 Skyward——抱歉，如同 Skyward Specialty——Apollo 的多元化組合意味著我們在市場演變中更能把握機會並捍衛業務。總結而言，我們本季表現非常出色。很明顯，我們的利基策略、卓越的執行力、投資組合建構，再加上一個新的費用引擎（fee engine），現在以及未來都將持續帶來強勁的獲利成長與名列前段的財務表現。

The combination of Skyward Specialty and Apollo brings together differentiated talent, technology, AI and innovation capabilities, positioning us to build on the unique strengths of each company and to pursue attractive new opportunities together. With that, I'd now like to turn the call back over to the operator to open up for Q&A. Operator?

Skyward Specialty 與 Apollo 的結合，匯聚了差異化的人才、科技、AI 與創新能力，使我們能在各自獨特優勢之上再接再厲，並共同追求具吸引力的新機會。接下來我想把電話交回給接線員，開放問答。接線員？

(Operator Instructions) Matt Carletti with Citizens.

（接線員指示）Citizens 的 Matt Carletti。

Andrew, I was hoping to, you spent some time talking about your differentiated platform, and I was hoping to dig a little deeper on that, and really have two questions. The first is, as you think about kind of how your business sits today, particularly with kind of Apollo on board now, and we think about where we are in the cycle, can you just give us your view of kind of how you see kind of the impact on growth and the impact on margins, or how that unfolds for Skyward versus kind of your select peer group or the industry? And then the second part is just to go a bit deeper and appreciating kind of the half of your business that is not P&C, things like surety, like A&H, like agriculture. We hear those words at other carriers at times, usually not all three, but here and there. Can you talk a little bit about how your approach to those businesses might be a bit different than what we might think of as the average approach?

Andrew，我想就你提到的差異化平台再深入一些，我其實有兩個問題。第一個是，當你思考目前你們的業務定位，特別是現在 Apollo 也加入之後，再加上我們所處的景氣循環位置，你能否談談你如何看待對成長的影響、對利潤率的影響，或這些因素對 Skyward 相較於你們選定的同業群或整體產業將如何展開？第二部分是再更深入一些，針對你們業務中非產險（P&C）的那一半，例如保證保險（surety）、意外與健康險（A&H）、農業險。我們有時也會在其他保險公司聽到這些詞，通常不會三個都同時出現，而是零星提到。你能否談談你們在這些業務上的做法，可能與一般常見做法有何不同？

Matt, thank you for the questions. And there's a lot there to unpack. So let me, I'm going to start sort of on the question about sort of how we see the market, our portfolio and margin outlook. And look, I think that I talk certainly about the parts that are the uncorrelated and have seen the biggest growth and for reasons that have to do with, like we have great product market fit, and we're not seeing kind of the cyclical factors, right? I'm going to set those aside for a moment.

Matt，謝謝你的提問，裡面有很多內容需要拆解。我先從你問到我們如何看市場、我們的投資組合以及利潤率展望開始。你看，我確實常談到那些相關性較低、且成長最顯著的部分，原因在於我們的產品與市場契合度（product market fit）很高，而且我們沒有受到典型循環因素的影響。這部分我先暫時放一邊。

I will just say to you that, I view our portfolios while very complementary and different, both Skyward Specialty and Apollo share one important sort of feature, which is the portfolios are quite niche. So, and I'll give you just a simple example because I was in London with the team just a couple of weeks back, and we're talking about the marine, energy and transport division of Apollo. And what became clear to me is that, for example, in that business, they have a leadership position in shipbuilders. They have a leadership position in ports and terminals. And while those two, if you will, subclasses aren't necessarily immune from macro conditions, they certainly aren't feeling the full effects of the marine, energy and transportation division.

我想說的是，我認為我們的兩個投資組合雖然非常互補且各有不同，但 Skyward Specialty 與 Apollo 共享一個重要特徵：它們都相當利基。舉個簡單例子：我幾週前和團隊在倫敦，討論 Apollo 的海運、能源與運輸事業部。讓我更清楚的是，例如在那個業務裡，他們在造船廠領域具領導地位，在港口與碼頭領域也具領導地位。雖然這兩個子類別不一定能完全免於總體環境影響，但它們確實不會承受海運、能源與運輸事業部整體所面臨的全部衝擊。

And while it feels like a faraway comparison, if you look at our management liability book, which is made up of Web3 smart contract types of exposure and cannabis and distressed homeowners, we're away from the parts of the management liability market that has the pressures of 50 carriers competed and really no opportunity to create kind of margin that separates from the rest of the industry. And I think if you worked across our portfolios, you would find example after example of that. I think what I would say to you is that, those niches have a certain opportunity size. And so, listen, to write Web3 is hard. You have to build a specialized insurance contract around that and so forth.

雖然這看起來像是很遠的類比，但如果你看我們的管理責任險（management liability）承保簿，裡面包含 Web3 智慧合約類型曝險、大麻產業，以及陷入困境的屋主等，我們其實避開了管理責任險市場中那種有 50 家承保公司競爭、幾乎沒有機會創造出可與產業其他公司拉開差距之利潤率的區塊。我認為若你橫跨我們的投資組合去看，會一再看到類似例子。我想要表達的是，這些利基市場都有其可承作的機會規模。比如說，承作 Web3 很難，你必須圍繞它建立專門的保險契約等等。

And we've done that, but it's a limited opportunity, which basically means that in soft market conditions, as long as you're disciplined and you don't sort of go chase everything else that's out there, which we don't, your growth opportunities will be a little bit more limited. I don't necessarily believe at this moment in time I see an impact on our margin. We're watching closely. I think both the leaders, James and John are doing an excellent job around that. But I don't see an impact on our margin because of where we're competing and how we're competing is sort of the thing I would highlight.

我們已經做到這點，但它是一個有限的機會；這基本上意味著在軟市（soft market）環境下，只要你保持紀律、不去追逐外面所有其他業務——而我們不會——你的成長機會就會相對受限。就目前此刻而言，我不認為我看到利潤率受到影響。我們正密切觀察。我認為兩位領導者 James 和 John 在這方面做得非常好。但我沒有看到利潤率受到影響，因為我們競爭的區域以及競爭方式，才是我想強調的重點。

And then on the other side being the parts that are, and I would put 1971 in there, because if you go just talk to anybody who was at RIMS, I think that they will tell you that the iBOT team is one of one, not of even two. There's one of one out there on what they do. And I think that those are the opportunities for us to drive, that's ag and A&H and the other areas that we talk about to continue to drive really outstanding growth, and selectively to be able to expand our margins as well. And so those are the things that at every opportunity, we're going to lean hard into.

另一方面，屬於——我也會把 1971 放在這裡——因為如果你去跟任何在 RIMS 的人聊，我想他們會告訴你 iBOT 團隊是獨一無二的，不是「一個或兩個」的那種，而是只有一個。他們所做的事情在市場上就是唯一。我認為這些就是我們可以推動的機會：農業險（ag）、意外與健康險（A&H），以及我們談到的其他領域，能持續帶動非常出色的成長，並且也能有選擇性地擴大利潤率。因此，這些就是我們在每一次機會出現時都會大力投入的方向。

Gregory Peters with Raymond James.

Raymond James 的 Gregory Peters。

I wanted to focus on the disclosure in your press release around the gross written premium by underwriting division. And you also, and you included comments about this, the managed premium growth. And so there's a bunch of moving pieces where we see certain lines or certain divisions where there's some substantial growth, and we see other areas where there's shrinkage. And I thought, I'd like to get more perspective on the moving pieces in there. And I know you just sort of answered some of it in the previous, with the previous question.

我想聚焦在你們新聞稿中關於各承保事業部總簽單保費（gross written premium）的揭露。你們也——並且你們也對此做了評論——提到受管理保費（managed premium）的成長。因此這裡有很多變動因素：我們看到某些險種或某些事業部有相當顯著的成長，也看到其他領域在縮減。我想更了解其中這些變動因素。我知道你在上一題的回答中已經部分提到。

But when I see this substantial growth, in the fee-generating gross written premium, and, it begs the question, how are you avoiding getting caught up in just market-sensitive types of businesses, and how are you able to avoid the stuff that's more cyclical and focus on the stuff that's less cyclical.

但當我看到這個在產生費用的總簽單保費（fee-generating gross written premium）出現大幅成長時，就引發一個問題：你們如何避免被捲入那種對市場敏感的業務類型？以及你們如何避開更具循環性的部分，並把重心放在較不具循環性的部分？

Greg, thanks for the question. I'm going to endeavor to answer it as best I can, but this may be something that we want to follow up and then make sure that if I'm not answering it fully for you here that there we are after the call. So there's two things that drive that premium, that is driving fees. The first part is that, that's directly linked to 1969 and 1971, where obviously, we have 25% of the capital deployed for those two syndicates. And so this is fees that correspond with the business that we're writing directly into our account.

Greg，謝謝你的問題。我會盡力把它回答得最好，但這可能也是我們需要後續再跟進的議題；如果我在這裡沒有完整回答到你的點，我們可以在會後再確保補充清楚。推動那個保費、也就是帶來費用的來源有兩個。第一部分是，它與 1969 和 1971 直接連結；很明顯地，我們在這兩個承保團部署了 25% 的資本。因此，這些費用對應的是我們直接寫入自有帳戶的業務。

And then in addition to that, as we have talked about in the past that Apollo has a division focused on providing managing agency services to partner syndicates. And in each and every instance of those partner syndicates, I would characterize, and there's nine in total, I would characterize that, there's nine syndicates in total that they are all really kind of away from the standard market. So they include things like parametric. They include now a credit-related syndicate. They include a captive for a global technology company.

此外，正如我們過去談到的，Apollo 有一個事業部專注於為合作承保團（partner syndicates）提供管理代理服務（managing agency services）。而在每一個合作承保團的案例中——總共有九個——我會這樣形容：這九個承保團基本上都遠離標準市場（standard market）。它們包括例如參數型（parametric）業務；現在也包括一個與信用相關的承保團；以及為一家全球科技公司設立的自保公司（captive）。

And so in each of those instances, they're rather unique and they fit with, I would say, principally the innovation mindset of our company in total, but more importantly, around Lloyd's ambition to bring new categories of risk into Lloyd's. And in fact, I believe if you ask the Lloyd's management how they view Apollo as a partner in this regard, I think that you would hear words around innovation and the ability to support some of these new ideas and provide the appropriate oversight and capabilities that they believe are requisite for those syndicates to operate effectively in Lloyd's. And I have little concern about the growth potential there based on what I know on the backlog of opportunities that are in front of us.

因此，在每一個這樣的案例中，它們都相當獨特；我會說，這主要契合我們公司整體的創新思維，但更重要的是，契合勞合社（Lloyd's）將新的風險類別引入勞合社的雄心。事實上，我相信如果你去問勞合社管理層，他們如何看待 Apollo 在這方面作為合作夥伴的角色，我想你會聽到一些關於創新、以及支持這些新想法並提供他們認為這些辛迪加在勞合社有效運作所必需的適當監督與能力等措辭。基於我所了解、擺在我們面前的機會儲備（backlog），我對那裡的成長潛力幾乎沒有疑慮。

That's good. And then can we go to the, just at the beginning of the question, I asked about the underwriting divisions. And I guess, I think you previously commented on the growth in credit and surety. I think seeing the shrinkage in global property makes sense based on what we know what's going on in the pricing environment. Maybe you could just remind us the specialty programs posting great results in the first quarter, what's going on there, and anything else you want to call out in the disclosure.

很好。那接著我們回到——就在問題一開始，我問到承保部門。我想我記得你之前評論過信用與保證保險（credit and surety）的成長。看到全球財產險（global property）縮減，依照我們對定價環境的了解，這很合理。也許你可以再提醒我們一下：專業方案（specialty programs）在第一季繳出很好的結果，那邊發生了什麼？以及在揭露內容裡還有沒有其他你想特別點出的？

Yes. So yes, thanks, Greg. I mean, listen, on the growth side, surety is the driver on that credit and surety, surety and credit line item. And our team is just incredible. And they just keep moving from strength to strength.

是的。所以，是的，謝謝你，Greg。我的意思是，聽著，在成長面上，信用與保證那個「保證與信用」（surety and credit）科目裡，主要的驅動因素是保證保險（surety）。我們的團隊真的非常出色，而且他們就是不斷地愈做愈強。

There's been a little bit of disruption. We were able to bring in some talent in a couple of geographies. And unsurprisingly, the books of business followed. And we're just, I mean, like just compare our financial results in the SFA published data, our growth and our loss performance, there's nobody who looks like us. I mean, it's just, we are one of one in terms of that level of performance.

確實有一點點擾動。我們在幾個地區引進了一些人才，而不出所料，業務保單組合也隨之跟進。我們就是——我的意思是，你只要把我們的財務結果跟 SFA 公布的數據相比，無論是成長或損失表現，沒有任何一家看起來像我們。我的意思是，就那種表現水準而言，我們是獨一無二的。

And the same thing on A&H, right? The results are out in the public domain. We're a top 5 performer in terms of loss results. And simultaneously, the combination of our single company medical stop-loss solution and our group captive solution, particularly the latter one has really found sort of product market fit. And again, I would say we're one of one there.

A&H（意外與健康險）也是一樣，對吧？結果都在公開領域。我們在損失結果方面是前五名的表現者。同時，我們的單一公司醫療止損（medical stop-loss）解決方案與團體自保（group captive）解決方案的組合——尤其是後者——確實找到了某種產品市場契合（product market fit）。而且我會再說一次，我們在那裡也是獨一無二的。

Ag, I talked about this, we are one of one. While we have a diversified global reinsurance program, we also have a unique capability around the US dairy livestock program, where we're the only company out there providing a risk transfer solution, one of one. So you'll see a theme here when I refer to 1971 in a similar way. On the flip side, I think our team is doing just an outstanding job defending our books and picking and choosing shots to win.

農業險（Ag），我談過這個，我們是獨一無二的。雖然我們有多元化的全球再保險計畫，但我們在美國乳牛畜牧計畫（US dairy livestock program）方面也有一項獨特能力：我們是市場上唯一提供風險移轉解決方案的公司，獨一無二。所以當我以類似方式提到 1971 時，你會看到這裡有一個主題。另一方面，我認為我們的團隊在守住既有業務、並挑選要贏的戰役方面做得非常出色。

And I think the, if you take professional as an example, what started as a soft market in public D&O bled into private D&O, which really was part of that niche focus I described that we pursued, but it's present in the miscellaneous sort of E&O category.

我想，如果以專業險（professional）為例，原本在上市公司董監責任險（public D&O）的軟市，蔓延到了非上市公司董監責任險（private D&O）；而後者其實是我所描述、我們所追求的那種利基聚焦的一部分，但這種情況也出現在雜項的專業責任（E&O）類別中。

Where it's not present right now is in, we're doing a good job seeing a strong opportunity and growth in health are professional. It just isn't visible to you in those numbers. I think on the E&S side, all that shrinkage is being driven by property straight up. The excess market is, and I wouldn't say anything different than you probably heard from other CEOs.

目前沒有出現這種情況的地方是——我們在健康照護專業險（health care professional）上看到很強的機會與成長，我們也做得很好；只是你在那些數字裡看不出來。我認為在 E&S（超額及特種險）那邊，所有的縮減都是由純財產險（property straight up）所驅動。超額市場（excess market）也是——我不會說任何跟你可能從其他 CEO 那裡聽到的不同的話。

I think there's still good opportunity out there. You have to be cautious in the loss inflation backdrop. I think our guys are doing it right. There's very little auto exposure in our excess book in E&S, and we're writing smaller limit stuff. GL is a bit of a mixed bag.

我認為市場上仍然有不錯的機會。在損失通膨的背景下，你必須謹慎。我覺得我們的人做得對。在我們 E&S 的超額業務中，汽車曝險（auto exposure）非常少，而且我們承作的是較小限額（smaller limit）的業務。一般責任險（GL）則有點好壞參半。

I'd be very cautious of any company who's reporting big casualty growth out there because that kind of market opportunity just doesn't exist the way it did one and two years ago. And I would say, it's a very uneven market. And I always like to provide examples, and I'm going to give you an example here. I oftentimes referred to, during sort of the E&S growth period, one area that we capitalized on was migrant hotels. We were probably the largest writer of migrant hotels in the United States.

我會對任何一家在外面報告巨額意外險（casualty）成長的公司非常謹慎，因為那種市場機會已經不像一、兩年前那樣存在了。我會說，這是一個非常不均衡的市場。我一直喜歡舉例，我在這裡給你一個例子。我常提到，在 E&S 成長期，我們把握的一個領域是移民旅館（migrant hotels）。我們可能是美國最大的移民旅館承保人。

We had a large book in New York City alone that, I think over the sort of the three or four year period we built that had maybe a 20% loss ratio. And it's tough business to write. On the other side, as that business has gone away, the corresponding opportunity that's gone into the market is writing ICE detention centers. That is a particularly difficult risk. We write that one way and one way only.

光是在紐約市，我們就有一個很大的保單組合；我想在我們建立那個組合的三到四年間，損失率（loss ratio）大概只有 20%。那是很難承作的業務。另一方面，隨著那個業務消退，市場上對應出現的機會變成承保 ICE（美國移民及海關執法局）拘留中心。那是一個特別難的風險。我們只用一種方式承作，而且只用那一種方式。

We write it with comprehensive assault and battery exclusion, no sexual abuse and molestation cover, et cetera, et cetera. We're writing accounts. And you write those at really good rates, you can make good money. And within like the last two or three months, I would say companies who I would hold in high regard come into the market writing without any coverage restrictions, which, from our vantage point, probably triples, quadruples the loss cost. So if you're going to write a $5 million exposure instead of expecting $400,000 or $500,000 of losses, you're going to end up with $2 million of losses.

我們承作時會採用全面的攻擊與毆打除外（comprehensive assault and battery exclusion）、不提供性侵害與猥褻（sexual abuse and molestation）保障，等等等等。我們在承作這些帳戶（accounts）。你如果用非常好的費率去寫，是可以賺錢的。但就在過去兩三個月內，我會說一些我很尊敬的公司進入市場，承作時完全沒有任何保障限制；從我們的角度看，那可能會讓損失成本增加三倍、四倍。所以如果你要承作 500 萬美元的曝險，本來預期損失是 40 萬或 50 萬美元，你最後可能會變成 200 萬美元的損失。

And yet they're competing almost pari-passu on pricing. And I would use that as an example of, well, it was really good three months ago. It's not good anymore and the people who are not trying to write that aren't doing it in a responsible way. So the market has gotten very uneven. And that unevenness means you just got to be really smart, pick and choose, be in the right place at the right time.

然而他們在定價上幾乎是同等（pari-passu）地競爭。我會用這個作為例子：三個月前真的很好，現在已經不好了；而那些仍想寫的人並沒有以負責任的方式在做。所以市場變得非常不均衡。而這種不均衡意味著你必須非常聰明地挑選取捨，在對的時間出現在對的地方。

Our business, as I've told you a bunch of times, is, it is severity driven, it's in the E&S market for the right reasons, and that's the stuff that we like to write. But when you see folks compromising things like terms and conditions, you have to just take pause and say, we're not going to chase that. And so you see some of that coming through our growth numbers. And rest assured, if you're an investor in us that we're bringing the kind of discipline that you'd want us to bring. And I would, on the flip side, companies who are loading up on casualty right now for whatever set of reasons, there isn't a broad enough market opportunity to justify that kind of growth in the market right now.

我已經跟你說過很多次，我們的業務是以大額損失（severity）驅動的；我們進入 E&S 市場是有正當理由的，而那就是我們喜歡承作的東西。但當你看到有人在條款與條件（terms and conditions）上妥協時，你就必須停下來想一想，說我們不會去追那個。因此你會在我們的成長數字裡看到一些反映。也請放心，如果你是我們的投資人，我們正在展現你希望我們展現的那種紀律。反過來說，現在不管出於什麼原因而大量加碼意外險的公司——目前市場上並沒有足夠廣泛的機會，能夠合理化那種成長幅度。

That's excellent detail.

這些細節非常好。

Meyer Shields with KBW.

KBW 的 Meyer Shields。

And obviously, I want to welcome Natalie back. Mark, you mentioned both seasonality and mix when you're talking about Apollo. I was hoping you could talk about that because I'm assuming the mix part might be more persistent even if seasonality evolves over the course of the year.

很明顯地，我想先歡迎 Natalie 回來。Mark，你在談 Apollo 的時候提到了季節性與組合（mix）。我希望你能談談這點，因為我假設「組合」的部分即使季節性在一年中逐步變化，也可能更具持續性。

Yes. Meyer, I agree with your comment. It is more mix than it is seasonality. I don't know what else to tell you. Are you asking anything else?

是的。Meyer，我同意你的評論。與其說是季節性，不如說更多是組合。我不知道還能怎麼跟你說。你還有問別的嗎？

What else can I help you with?

我還能怎麼幫你？

Well, I was hoping you sort of like flesh out what the seasonality is just in terms of the evolution of the Apollo books combined ratio over the course of the year.

嗯，我希望你能更具體說明季節性，特別是就 Apollo 的保單組合綜合率（combined ratio）在一年中的變化路徑而言。

Well, it varies, right? There are a number of classes. And so I don't have all of the detail in front of me, but it varies by class. There's just a number of businesses that can impact the loss ratio.

嗯，這會變動，對吧？有很多不同的險種。因此我手邊沒有所有細節，但它會因險種而異。有不少業務都可能影響損失率。

Yes. Meyer, I think what I would point to is that, you're going to see in the fourth quarter, fourth quarter is heavily driven by 1971. The third quarter is heavily driven by 1969. It's a lot lighter in the first half of the year. And not like in the United States where most of our business is earned in ratably over the course of the year, let's say, or even if you're writing surety, maybe it's, and the duration of our surety is like a 14 month average contract, maybe it's ratably over 14 months.

是的。Meyer，我想我會指出的是：你會在第四季看到——第四季很大程度是由 1971 所驅動。第三季很大程度是由 1969 所驅動。上半年就輕很多。這不像在美國，我們大多數業務是全年按比例（ratably）賺取保費的；或者即使你在寫保證保險，可能也是——我們的保證保險平均合約期間大約 14 個月，可能就是在 14 個月內按比例賺取。

There's business in there that earns in over a shorter period of time, which can have an effect on how the loss ratio earns in. I think the high-level point is, it is a great result. We're very, we're both pleased and proud of our Apollo colleagues. It's a great way to come out of the blocks. But I think that, we just go back to what we said when we gave you guidance that you should understand that Apollo will probably consistently on a loss ratio performance all in be a bit better than us in the United States at Skyward Specialty and on the expense ratio, a bit higher and, but they're relatively comparable combined ratio businesses over the course of a full year.

那裡面有些業務是在較短期間內賺取保費，這可能會影響損失率的賺取（earning in）方式。我認為高層次的重點是，這是一個很棒的結果。我們非常、我們既高興也為我們的 Apollo 同仁感到自豪。這是個很好的開局。但我想，我們只要回到我們在給你們指引時所說的：你們應該理解，Apollo 在整體損失率表現上，可能會一貫地比我們在美國的 Skyward Specialty 略好一些；而在費用率方面，會略高一些；但就一整年的期間來看，它們在綜合率（combined ratio）上是相對可比的業務。

Okay. That's very helpful. The second question, I guess, I think this is predominantly Apollo or maybe global property. I was hoping you talk about Middle East and exposure, both in terms of loss potential and where rates are apparently evolving pretty quickly.

好的。這非常有幫助。第二個問題，我想這主要是 Apollo 或者可能是全球財產險。我希望你談談中東與曝險，包含損失潛在影響，以及那裡的費率顯然正在相當快速地變動。

Yes. Great question, and thank you. This is like one of these ones I smile at whether I'm just lucky, I think, as a CEO in this instance. We are with our Board, and it's nice to be able to have a real-world event as the first test of like the great risk management and underwriting at Apollo. Short story is this, Apollo really sort of reduced their aggregate exposure in the Middle East just simply because post-Crimea, they concluded that there just wasn't the rate to support the kind of potential political risk, political violence and other sort of adjacent exposure.

是的。很好的問題，謝謝。這題讓我會心一笑——在這個情況下，作為 CEO，我不知道是我運氣好還是怎樣。我們和董事會在一起，而能夠把一個真實世界事件作為對 Apollo 優秀風險管理與核保的第一次測試，這很好。簡單說是這樣：Apollo 在中東的總體曝險其實大幅降低，原因很單純——克里米亞事件之後，他們判斷費率不足以支撐潛在的政治風險、政治暴力以及其他相鄰曝險。

And their exposure runs through marine, war, aviation, political risk, political violence. As a percentage of the market in Lloyd's, their exposure to the Middle East is far less than their share of each of those markets. We have, in our loss picks this quarter, some of that exposure. We have one reported loss of really any size, and that's incorporated into our picks. And if things develop beyond sort of the numbers that are being talked about over the course of the second quarter and beyond, and we believe it reflects in our book, we're going to sort of obviously reflect that.

而他們的曝險涵蓋海運、戰爭、航空、政治風險、政治暴力。以在勞合社（Lloyd's）市場中的占比來看，他們對中東的曝險遠低於他們在上述各市場的份額。我們在本季的損失估計（loss picks）中也納入了一些相關曝險。我們目前只有一筆任何規模較大的已通報損失，且已反映在我們的估計中。若事態發展超出第二季及之後市場上所談論的數字，而我們認為這會反映在我們的保單組合中，我們當然也會相應反映。

But I think what you should understand is that we're definitely undersized in the Middle East, and that's a direct byproduct of leadership's determination that the rates really didn't support the exposure there. Post the event, we're trying to be picky. There are some instances like we have, we've written a handful of accounts, things like parking garage structures and in some of the other countries that are experiencing kind of the collateral effects, if you will, we've written some things that are sea-bearing around, like service shifts and so forth. But I would describe what the team has done as being very thoughtful in kind of picking and choosing and kind of waiting to see a really sort of fulsome movement on the market environment, that would have us lean in further than we are.

但我認為你們應該理解的是：我們在中東的規模確實偏小，這是管理層認定當地費率確實不足以支撐該曝險的直接結果。事件發生後，我們正試著更挑剔一些。有些情況例如我們寫了少數幾個帳戶，像是停車場結構物；以及在一些正承受所謂外溢影響的其他國家，我們也寫了一些與海運相關的業務，例如服務轉移等。但我會形容團隊的作法是非常審慎地挑選，並且等待市場環境出現更全面的變動，才會讓我們比目前更積極地加碼。

Okay. Perfect. That's very helpful, very thorough. Final question, if I can. If we look at the, I guess, the margin on the fee-based business for managing other capital providers premium, is that margin pretty steady over the course of the year?

好的。完美。這非常有幫助，也很周全。最後一個問題，如果可以的話。若我們看你們管理其他資本提供者保費的收費型（fee-based）業務之利潤率，那個利潤率在一年當中是否相當穩定？

It is pretty steady over the course of the year. I mean, I would want to bring Taryn into the conversation to make sure that I fully understand it. It is, I believe it would follow the actual writings of premium. And so if there's seasonality there, I think that, that might influence it. But I'd tell you what, let me make sure that we come back to you on that.

一年當中是相當穩定的。我的意思是，我想把 Taryn 拉進來確認我完全理解。我認為它會跟隨實際承保（written）的保費走，所以如果那裡有季節性，我想那可能會影響它。不過這樣吧，我先確認一下，之後再回覆你。

So that I'm answering it accurately versus kind of my general understanding of how that part comes through, the true sort of partner syndicate fee income would come through.

這樣我才能準確回答，而不是只憑我對那一塊如何反映出來的一般理解——也就是所謂真正的合作夥伴辛迪加（partner syndicate）費用收入會如何入帳。

Alex Scott with Barclays.

Barclays 的 Alex Scott。

I was hoping you could talk a bit about the way Apollo participates in the cyber business. I just don't know much about it. So I'd be interested in sort of the overview of what they do in that market. And then just your views on any risk from some of the developments in artificial intelligence and identifying vulnerabilities.

我希望你能談談 Apollo 參與網路保險（cyber）業務的方式。我對這塊不太了解，所以我想聽一個他們在該市場做什麼的概覽。然後也想請教你對於人工智慧的一些發展、以及辨識弱點方面，可能帶來的任何風險的看法。

Yes. So Alex, thanks for the question. I'm looking at a colleague to make sure that everything that's mentally in my mind. So one of the partner syndicates, I think, in fact, actually, it's not a partner syndicate. It's managed as a special purpose syndicate, we participate and it's an entity called Envelop that has what I would describe as very kind of unique IP in the cyber space, but also a bunch of that exposure is not what you would think about as sort of traditional US and even OECD exposure.

是的。Alex，謝謝你的問題。我正在看一位同事，確認我腦中所想的內容都正確。其中一個合作夥伴辛迪加——我想其實它不是合作夥伴辛迪加，而是以特殊目的辛迪加（special purpose syndicate）方式管理——我們參與的是一家叫 Envelop 的實體；它在網路領域有我會形容為非常獨特的智慧財產（IP），而且其中相當一部分曝險並不是你會想到的那種傳統美國、甚至 OECD 的曝險。

So I think that, that's probably the most notable thing, and that comes through as a reinsurance participation. I think that beyond that, there probably is other exposure. But again, I think this is a case where first quarter, trying to make sure that we're fully prepared, I would want to make sure that we're following up and checking that off with our colleagues there. So, but that would be the one that I highlight that really does dominate what is the substantive exposure for Apollo.

所以我認為那可能是最值得注意的部分，而且是以再保參與（reinsurance participation）的形式反映出來。除此之外，可能還有其他曝險。但同樣地，我想這是第一季，我們要確保自己完全準備好；我會想要再跟那邊的同事確認並把它核對清楚。不過我會強調的就是這一塊，它確實主導了 Apollo 的實質曝險。

And in the US, we have really de minimis exposure to cyber.

而在美國，我們在網路險的曝險其實非常小（de minimis）。

Got it. I know kind of the last question. All right. As a follow-up, maybe a broader one. I mean, we're hearing increasingly, just talking to some people in the rooms, it sounds like the specialty markets has gotten pretty darn competitive.

了解。我知道這算是最後一個問題了。好。作為追問，可能更廣泛一些。我是說，我們越來越常聽到——跟一些在場的人聊——感覺專業險市場已經變得相當、相當競爭。

And I know you all have done a great job of focusing on your niches. But any update on how you're feeling about growth and continuing to be able to find those spots net of where you've got to pull back here and there? And any update that you'd give us to some of that guidance laid out for the 2026 plan?

我知道你們一直很擅長聚焦在利基領域。但在成長方面，你們現在的感受如何？在必須在某些地方收縮的同時，是否仍能持續找到那些機會點？另外，對於你們在 2026 計畫中提出的部分指引，有沒有什麼更新可以提供？

Yes. Yes, thanks. Alex, I think that it's, I will say, the one interesting dimension of the market today, and this is 35 years of personal experience and more correspondingly 35 years, it's, the speed in which things have moved has been pretty extraordinary. I think probably the most notable change separating out everything that's been discussed about MGAs and fronts and so forth is now you're seeing, obviously, third-party capital sidecars. And more recently, we're talking to folks and the desire for runoff carriers to come in and probably writing at better terms than the ceding companies for those sidecars, which is kind of like a frightening prospect.

是的。是的，謝謝。Alex，我想我會說，當前市場有一個有趣的面向——以我個人 35 年的經驗、也相對應地 35 年來看——事情變動的速度非常驚人。我想最顯著的變化，撇開大家討論的 MGAs、fronts 等等不談，現在你會看到很明顯的第三方資本 sidecar。更近期的是，我們在跟一些人談，他們希望讓 runoff（停寫/清算）保險公司進來，而且可能以比出再公司（ceding companies）對那些 sidecar 更好的條件來承保，這有點像是令人擔憂的前景。

I think, it makes things pretty hard to predict. What I would say to you on the flip side, and I just can't emphasize this enough. We have this incredibly durable portfolio. And so as things get tougher in selected places, I know that, our leadership is prepared to make sure that we're holding the line, we're writing the best accounts, we're doing it on terms and conditions that are going to generate the returns that we seek.

我認為這讓事情變得很難預測。反過來我想對你說的是——而且我怎麼強調都不為過——我們有一個極其耐久的投資組合。因此，當某些領域變得更艱難時，我知道我們的管理團隊已準備好確保我們守住底線：只承保最好的帳戶，並以能產生我們所追求報酬的條款與條件來承保。

And then simultaneous to that, the growth opportunities that we have in A&H and surety and Ag and 1971 and even some niches that sit elsewhere in the Skyward Specialty US business and the Apollo 1969 business are going to continue to deliver growth well above our peers. So we follow every one of the folks who reported before us. And if you take a cross-section of that cohort, and that would include the primary insurance operations of the Bermudians who we compete against, our growth looks outstanding against them. And yet, we feel as good about the margin content of that growth as we did a year ago and a year before that. In fact, in some cases, we feel better about the margin content.

同時，我們在 A&H（意外與健康）、保證保險（surety）、農業（Ag）、1971，以及甚至一些位於 Skyward Specialty 美國業務其他地方與 Apollo 1969 業務中的利基領域的成長機會，將持續帶來遠高於同業的成長。我們追蹤每一家在我們之前公布的公司。如果你取那一群的橫截面——其中也包括我們競爭的百慕達公司之主要保險營運——我們的成長相較之下看起來非常出色。然而，我們對這些成長的利潤含量（margin content）的信心，和一年前、兩年前一樣好。事實上，在某些情況下，我們覺得利潤含量更好。

And so I just, I think we're in a really unique and outstanding place. I think our investors want to make sure that they understand that. And I feel good about the year. We've never really gotten too specific about growth. And I think otherwise, our guidance stands.

所以我只是——我認為我們處在一個非常獨特且出色的位置。我想我們的投資人希望確保他們理解這一點，而我對今年的表現感覺良好。我們從來沒有對成長給出過於具體的數字。除此之外，我們的指引維持不變。

We're not changing our guidance. We've never missed consensus as a public company. Every quarter, we've exceeded consensus. We're committed to giving guidance that we believe is achievable. And if we can beat that guidance, we'll beat the guidance.

我們不會調整指引。我們作為上市公司從未低於市場共識（consensus）。每一季我們都超越共識。我們承諾提供我們認為可達成的指引；如果我們能超越該指引，我們就會超越指引。

Paul Newsome with Piper Sandler.

Piper Sandler 的 Paul Newsome。

Kind of more on the same topic, but maybe the other way looking a little differently. How do you think about the proportion of your business today that isn't part of the cyclical concerns that we're talking about? Where, do you think your business resistant?

大致還是同一個主題，但可能從另一個角度看。你如何看待你們目前業務中，有多少比例不屬於我們正在談的那些景氣循環疑慮的一部分？你覺得你們的業務在哪些方面具有抗循環性（resistant）？

Say the last part again, Paul? I missed the last part.

Paul，你把最後那部分再說一次？我漏聽了最後那部分。

Just where do you think the business is resistant and not dealing with the competitive issues that you're talking about today?

你認為業務在哪些方面具有抗性，且沒有在處理你今天提到的競爭議題？

Well, I mean, I think that if we look at it on a full year basis, it's going to be well in excess of 50%. And we just point to the categories we've talked about in the past. They're made up of our surety, A&H, credit, ag, captives, 1971, we put into that. But I'll also say to you that there's no shortage of pieces, as I've talked about, like we have little niches, what we write in management liability, some of those categories were 1 of only 2 or 3 companies who are writing that. And so, and I'll just, I'll say it again, I use my example of if you're going to write Web3, you actually have to have a product that defines a smart contract.

嗯，我的意思是，我認為如果我們以全年為基礎來看，這個比例會遠遠超過 50%。我們只要回到過去談過的那些類別即可。它們由我們的保證保險（surety）、A&H、信用、農業、captives、1971（我們也把它納入其中）所構成。但我也要說，正如我提過的，我們並不缺少這類板塊：例如我們在一些小眾領域有利基市場，像是我們在管理責任險所承保的某些項目，那些類別可能全市場只有 2 到 3 家公司在承作。所以——我再說一次——我用 Web3 的例子：如果你要承保 Web3，你實際上必須有一個能定義智慧合約的產品。

You can't just use a standard management liability product. So, and so you have a bit of practical barriers to entry on even some of the niche stuff. We don't put that into the cycle resistant because it's like just, it's just too hard and would require a lot of detail and disclosure. But I think today, well in excess of 50% of our business. And I think that what 1971, the guys at iBOT are doing, the focus on autonomy is, it's just like a, it is wide open in terms of what the potential is for our company, particularly given that we're starting from a leadership position.

你不能只是用標準的管理責任險產品。因此，即便是在一些利基業務上，也存在一些實務上的進入門檻。我們不把那部分算進抗循環（cycle resistant）裡，因為那樣做太困難，且需要大量細節與揭露。但我認為就今天而言，我們的業務中遠遠超過 50% 屬於這類。並且我認為 1971——iBOT 的團隊正在做的事情——對自主化（autonomy）的聚焦，對我們公司而言在潛力上是完全敞開的，尤其是考量到我們是從領先地位起步。

And so I, again, I just, I feel like it's more than 50% of our portfolio. And I believe that in a horizon until we start to see us transition from, kind of into a softening market and transition back towards a hardening market, which might be quite a few quarters or even years out, we'll probably see a larger portion of our portfolio grow in these areas that I would characterize as more cycle resistant.

所以我再次強調，我覺得這占我們投資組合的比例超過 50%。而且我相信，在我們開始看到市場從某種程度的趨軟（softening market）轉回趨硬（hardening market）之前——這可能還要好幾個季度甚至好幾年——我們可能會看到投資組合中更大一部分在這些我會稱之為更具抗循環特性的領域成長。

Great. Different question. Reinsurance market also going through quite a bit of change. I think, a fair user of reinsurance. How should we think about the impact of the reinsurance market affecting your business given that there are definitely pockets there that are pretty soft?

很好。換個問題。再保險市場也正在經歷相當多的變化。我想你們算是相當程度使用再保險的公司。我們應該如何看待再保險市場對你們業務的影響，因為那裡確實有一些區塊相當疲軟？

I think on both the Skyward Specialty and the Apollo, part of the, parts of the business, we've had good success through this part of the year. I can tell you like we renewed our cat program on 4/1. We, because, obviously, property is coming off. We rightsized our exposure. We stayed with a range of kind of 1 in 10 to 1 in 250.

我認為在 Skyward Specialty 與 Apollo 這兩部分業務上，我們在今年這段期間都取得了不錯的成果。我可以告訴你，例如我們在 4/1 續保了我們的巨災（cat）計畫。由於很明顯財產險（property）正在回落，我們把曝險做了適度調整（rightsized）。我們維持在大約 1/10 到 1/250 的區間。

Our sort of risk-adjusted rate came way off. Our second event cover dropped down lower. It was like at $7.5 million second event, it's down to $5 million. So we saw a lot of benefits in the states and similarly at Apollo. On the flip side, we know still that, there's margin in our reinsurance that we're placing into the reinsurance community.

我們的風險調整後費率大幅下降。我們的第二次事故保障（second event cover）也降得更低；原本第二次事故是 750 萬美元，現在降到 500 萬美元。所以我們在美國端看到了很多好處，Apollo 也類似。另一方面，我們也仍然知道，我們向再保險市場分出（placing）的再保險裡仍然存在利差（margin）。

I mentioned in my prepared remarks, the launch of 1972. It's a really powerful sort of innovation by the Apollo team. I think they're first to do such a structure, like it's a sidecar structure, but the way they did it. And so they basically have taken 20% of their outwards reinsurance and put it into 1972. It's managed.

我在事先準備的發言中提到 1972 的推出。這是 Apollo 團隊非常強大的創新。我認為他們是第一個做出這種結構的——它是一種 sidecar 結構，但他們的做法很不一樣。因此他們基本上把其對外分出的再保險（outwards reinsurance）中的 20% 放進 1972。這是受管理的。

We keep 1/4 of that and then third-party capital supports that follows the market. So we're able to recapture fees on that. And we're going to be using that next year for Skyward Specialty as well. And we do that because we still believe that our reinsurance purchasing, for all the right reasons, still has margin, good margin in there for the reinsurers, and that's one way that we can recapture at least a portion of it.

我們保留其中的 1/4，然後由跟隨市場的第三方資本提供支持。因此我們能在其中回收費用（recapture fees）。而且我們明年也會把這套做法用在 Skyward Specialty 上。我們之所以這麼做，是因為我們仍然相信，基於各種正當理由，我們的再保險採購中仍然有利差——對再保險人而言有不錯的利差——而這是我們至少能回收其中一部分的方式。

Tracy Benguigui with Wolfe Research.

Wolfe Research 的 Tracy Benguigui。

So you're clearly pulling back in global property within the Skyward Specialty segment. At the same time, we're hearing that the Lloyd's market has become more aggressive on property, contributing to broader property softness. So I understand that most of Apollo's growth shows up in fees, but you're still taking on some of that risk. So within the Apollo segment, how would you characterize the property growth in the quarter? And if you're participating on a whole account proportional basis, are you effectively assuming more property exposure to Apollo while reducing it at Skyward Specialty?

所以你們顯然在 Skyward Specialty 部門縮減全球財產險（global property）。同時，我們也聽到勞合社（Lloyd's）市場在財產險上變得更具進取性，導致更廣泛的財產險趨軟。所以我理解 Apollo 的大部分成長會反映在費用（fees）上，但你們仍然承擔了一部分風險。因此在 Apollo 部門內，你會如何描述本季財產險的成長？以及如果你們是以整體帳戶的比例分保（whole account proportional）方式參與，你們是否等於在降低 Skyward Specialty 的財產曝險同時，卻在 Apollo 端承擔更多財產曝險？

So how should we think about how you align those underwriting appetites across the two platforms?

那我們應該如何理解你們在兩個平台之間如何對齊這些核保偏好（underwriting appetites）？

Yes. So thanks, Tracy. Really great question. So Doug Davies leads our global property business in the United States. Kate Foster leads the property business at Apollo.

是的。謝謝你，Tracy，這真的是個很好的問題。Doug Davies 負責我們在美國的全球財產險業務。Kate Foster 負責 Apollo 的財產險業務。

Those two are certainly in communication, seeing their different views in the market. To be clear, we're not writing any pro rata in London. That piece is, at least as it relates to the open market business is a direct and fact business. There's no two people in our entire company that I feel better about their ability to find a way to make a buck in a tough market than those two people. And I say that with great sincerity.

這兩位當然一直保持溝通，並觀察他們對市場的不同看法。要說清楚的是，我們在倫敦不做任何按比例（pro rata）承保。那一塊——至少就公開市場業務（open market business）而言——是直保且屬於自留（direct and fact）業務。我們公司裡沒有任何兩個人，能讓我對他們在艱難市場中找到賺錢方法的能力更有信心，就是這兩位。我非常真誠地這麼說。

They are two of the strongest underwriting leaders who have a comprehensive view of the market, know how to work with the brokers in these kind of markets and be able to sort of get their pound of flesh out. And by the way, Apollo's sort of growth or lack of growth is following almost exactly what's happening in our published numbers that you see for global property division in Skyward Specialty. And so I feel great about it. I think, that at a higher level, one thing that is really a standout capability of Apollo is something that James Slaughter has been leading around being able to ensure accounts are clearly understood in terms of risk quality. And so when you're softening, when you're in a softening market, particularly in places like property, you have a quantitative view of the highest risk quality, which is really where you want to defend your portfolio, because quite honestly, you're, ultimately, your loss content for that part of the business can be paid for even in the kind of rate environment we're in now.

他們是兩位最強的核保領導者之一，對市場有全面的視角，知道如何在這類市場中與經紀人合作，並能夠設法拿到自己該拿的那一份。順帶一提，Apollo 的成長或不成長，幾乎完全跟隨你在 Skyward Specialty 的全球財產險部門所看到、我們已公布的數字所反映的情況。所以我對此感覺很好。我認為從更高層次來看，Apollo 一項非常突出的能力，是 James Slaughter 一直在推動的：能夠確保對帳戶的風險品質（risk quality）有清楚的理解。因此當市場趨軟、尤其是在財產險這類領域趨軟時，你會有一個量化的視角去辨識最高風險品質——這正是你想要防守你的投資組合的地方，因為坦白說，即便在我們現在這樣的費率環境下，你最終仍然可以用該部分業務的損失含量（loss content）來支付得起。

So I feel great, to be honest. And oh, by the way, I think you see these negative growth numbers. And yet, as a company, we're still putting up really impressive overall growth. And so I think in that regard, we're showing up as quite sort of thoughtful and responsible about our portfolio construction. Neither of those two leaders are feeling any pressure to write business that they don't believe they can make an appropriate return on.

所以老實說，我感覺非常好。還有，順帶一提，我想你看到這些負成長數字，但作為一家公司，我們整體仍然交出非常亮眼的成長。因此我認為在這方面，我們在投資組合建構上表現得相當審慎且負責。這兩位領導者都沒有感受到任何壓力，要去承作他們不相信能取得適當報酬的業務。

Got it. You mentioned James Slaughter. He's on the call. Hi. It's been a while. Also, I like seeing the segment details. Given Apollo has a different combined ratio profile, like lower loss ratio, higher expense ratio and on an enterprise level, how should we think about your loss ratio and expense ratio outlook? Is the first quarter a good representation of what we should expect?

了解。你提到了 James Slaughter。他也在這通電話上。嗨，好久不見。另外，我也喜歡看到分部細節。鑑於 Apollo 的綜合比率（combined ratio）結構不同，例如較低的損失率（loss ratio）、較高的費用率（expense ratio），那在企業整體層面，我們應該如何看待你們損失率與費用率的展望？第一季是否能很好代表我們應該預期的水準？

I think our guidance is a good representation of what you should expect. And look, like, that's our story, and we're sticking to it. I think we just, we're sticking with our guidance. We, it was a good quarter. And as I said, I'm very proud of the Apollo team for what they achieved in the first quarter.

我認為我們的指引（guidance）就能很好代表你應該預期的情況。你看，這就是我們的說法，我們也會堅持這個說法。我認為我們就是會遵循我們的指引。第一季是個好季度。而且如我所說，我為 Apollo 團隊在第一季達成的成果感到非常自豪。

But I think, full year basis, you got to think about cats and you got to think about mix earning in, and we're still going to see outstanding returns as a company. And I'm pretty confident that we're going to hit and hopefully meaningfully exceed the guidance that we provided late last year.

但我認為以全年來看，你必須考慮巨災（cats），也必須考慮組合在承保期間的攤提（mix earning in），而我們仍將作為一家公司交出非常出色的報酬。我相當有信心我們會達成，並希望能顯著超越我們在去年年底提供的指引。

No, my question was more just on the composition of the combined ratio, the profile.

不，我的問題更多是關於綜合比率的構成，也就是那個結構（profile）。

The expense ratio?

費用率？

Yes. Like, higher expense ratio, yes.

是的。像是費用率較高，對。

Yes, I think that Mark might want to give a bit more detail, but I think that the expense ratio you saw for the first quarter from Apollo is probably a pretty good within the kind of the proximity of what we would expect on a full year basis.

是的，我想 Mark 可能會想補充更多細節，但我認為你在第一季看到的 Apollo 費用率，大概相當接近我們對全年所預期的水準。

Yes. I mean, Tracy, in the aggregate, we target, we've said and this quarter as well, sub-30% is our watermark for the expense ratio. Do I still believe that? I do. 28.5 for the quarter.

是的。我的意思是，Tracy，整體而言，我們的目標——我們一直說，而且本季也是——費用率低於 30% 是我們的基準線（watermark）。我還相信這點嗎？我相信。本季是 28.5%。

I don't, I feel like that's right in line with what we guided. In the loss ratio, again, to Andrew's point, ex-cat, I feel good about where it is. But as we've talked about already a couple of times, business mix can impact it a little bit quarter-over-quarter, but I feel pretty good about both the expense ratio and the loss ratio given business mix. It can move around just a little bit.

我不覺得，我覺得這跟我們所給的指引完全一致。就損失率而言，再次呼應 Andrew 的觀點，扣除巨災（ex-cat）後，我對目前的水準感到滿意。不過如同我們已經談過幾次的，業務組合可能會讓它在季度之間有些微影響，但在既定業務組合下，我對費用率與損失率都相當有信心。它可能只會小幅波動。

And that corporate expense, that's included in your view of the expense ratio?

那公司層級費用也包含在你對費用率的看法裡嗎？

It is.

是的。

Okay.

好的。

Yes. That 30% Mendoza line that we talked about, Tracy, long ago, which preceded obviously the transaction with Apollo, we revisited that with Apollo fully in mind, and we think it's the right thing to sort of keep that Mendoza Line for ourselves. I'd like to just say one other thing, Tracy. It hasn't been asked, but it's tied to your question. Obviously, a lot is happening with AI and people, everybody is talking about it, right?

是的。我們很久以前跟你談過的那條 30% Mendoza 線，Tracy，那是在與 Apollo 的交易之前就有的。我們在充分考量 Apollo 的情況下重新檢視了它，我們認為對我們來說，保留這條 Mendoza 線是正確的。我還想再補充一點，Tracy。雖然沒有人問，但這跟你的問題有關。顯然，AI 和人力方面正在發生很多事，大家都在談，對吧？

But our experience so far, and we've got great results and so forth, is this stuff requires real investment. And a lot of that investment happens in advance of being able to sort of see the benefits come through. It's pretty hard to imagine doing that and not backing up on your expense ratio if you don't have the growth to offset that. We're gaining efficiencies as a company overall, but we're also funding the next and the next and the next part of our technology development. And as I look at that, like growth is part of what makes that possible for us and not get too close to that 30% Mendoza Line.

但就我們目前的經驗而言，而且我們也取得了很好的成果等等，這些事情需要真正的投資。而且很多投資是在你能夠看到效益顯現之前就要先投入。很難想像在沒有成長來抵銷的情況下，還能做這些事而不讓費用率往上走。我們整體公司正在提升效率，但同時也在資助下一階段、再下一階段、再下一階段的技術開發。從這個角度看，成長是讓我們能做到這些、又不至於太接近那條 30% Mendoza 線的一部分原因。

I think that as you look forward in other quarters and people are talking about AI and the investment there, it's going to start to become visible when growth isn't apparent. And I think that, that's, for us, it's comforting to know that we're able to fund that entirely within our guidance on expense ratio.

我認為，當你往後看其他季度、大家在談 AI 以及相關投資時，一旦成長不明顯，這些投資就會開始變得可見。我覺得對我們而言，令人安心的是，我們能完全在費用率指引範圍內為這些投資提供資金。

Mark Hughes with Truist.

Truist 的 Mark Hughes。

Andrew, in the property market, you've talked quite a bit about the pressure there, particularly in coastal national accounts. It seems like if you look across the public space, property premiums on average up a little bit, down a little bit. You don't really see it in the published results of your competitors, again, the public companies. Is there really that much pressure? Or is kind of the, are you seeing a slower decline outside of those kind of higher volatility areas?

Andrew，在財產險市場方面，你談了不少那裡的壓力，特別是在沿海的大型全國性帳戶。看起來如果你放眼整個公開市場，財產險保費平均而言有的略升、有的略降。你在競爭對手（同樣是上市公司）公布的結果裡，似乎也看不太出來。真的有那麼大的壓力嗎？還是說，你看到的是在那些高波動區域之外，下降速度比較慢？

It just seems like if you didn't know the headlines that property was affordable, if you look at the results, you wouldn't see as much pressure in the actual P&Ls. You may not agree with that point, but I'm just sort of curious what you make of that.

感覺上，如果你不知道那些頭條說財產險變得可負擔了，光看結果，你不會在實際損益表（P&L）裡看到那麼大的壓力。你可能不同意這個看法，但我只是好奇你怎麼解讀。

Well, I would, thanks, Mark. I think in the US global property, specifically the more general property book, so we have cat exposure, but we have lots of technical. So it's, and at least in the London market part of the book for Apollo, I think there's certainly more cat exposure there. We're kind of entering the point where there's a lot of volume coming through.

嗯，謝謝你，Mark。我認為在美國的全球財產險，特別是較一般性的財產險組合，我們有巨災曝險，但也有很多技術性業務。所以——至少在 Apollo 的業務中、倫敦市場那一部分，我覺得那裡確實有更多巨災曝險。我們正進入一個有大量承保量湧入的階段。

So we're probably better to be precise on your answer next quarter. But, and I don't think that we're as well positioned as some writers to really talk about cat because at least through Skyward Specialty, that definitely is not our focus. I just think the property market, by and large, has lost all its sense and sensibilities. And it's so fast that you might have looked back three, four, five months ago and say, wow, it's coming off fast, but it hasn't, in our view, slowed down. So for those folks who are out there posting sort of results and giving whatever explanations they're giving, it just straight up wouldn't correspond with our view of the market.

所以我們可能要到下個季度才能更精準地回答你的問題。不過，我也不認為我們像某些承保人那樣具備很好的位置去談巨災，因為至少在 Skyward Specialty 這邊，那絕對不是我們的重點。我只是覺得整體而言，財產險市場已經失去所有理性與分寸。而且變化非常快，你可能回頭看三、四、五個月前會說，哇，降得很快，但在我們看來，它並沒有放慢。所以那些在外面公布結果、並給出各種解釋的人，他們的說法坦白講與我們對市場的看法並不相符。

There are places, right? I mean there's, definitely as you get to the true small end of the property market, it never went up the way the property market went up, and it doesn't come down the way the property market comes down. But those are very small pockets, and they, it's very hard to see companies say that, that represents their book of business in total. So from our perspective, we're doing the things to hold our margin. And if others are able to sort of do it without dropping volume, they're doing it in ways that we don't understand. How is that?

當然有一些區域是例外，對吧？也就是說，當你到財產險市場真正的小型端時，它當初上漲的幅度從來沒有像整體財產險市場那樣大，而它下跌時也不會像整體市場那樣跌。但那只是非常小的口袋市場，而且很難想像有公司會說那就代表了他們整體的業務組合。所以從我們的角度，我們正在做該做的事來守住利潤率。如果其他人能在不降低承保量的情況下做到，我們也不太理解他們是怎麼做到的。怎麼會這樣？

I appreciate that. I also like your Jane Austen referenced, you're quite the renaissance man. If I might ask one other question, the accident and health, growth there has been fabulous. Can you talk about the sustainability there perhaps? How much might be tied to initiatives you put in place.

了解，謝謝。我也很喜歡你引用《珍・奧斯汀》，你真是個文藝復興人。如果我可以再問一個問題，意外與健康險（A&H）那邊的成長非常亮眼。你能談談那邊的可持續性嗎？有多少可能與你們推動的措施有關？

You had some very good experience, but you may lap those at some point? Or does it feel like the opportunity there should be more durable?

你們有一些非常好的經驗，但之後可能會遇到基期效應（lap）？還是說那邊的機會看起來應該更具持久性？

Well, I have to say, like if you use a McKinsey kind of view of different horizons, I feel really good about Horizon 1, like the next year. I think we feel pretty good about Horizon 2 because we're, we've been pleasantly surprised with sort of three things. One is, there's been a lot of disruption in parts of the market that we don't really touch, but we get the second order benefits of that. We've had a great run on talent, really, really great run on having talent come our way. And I think the third part of it, when I think like Horizon 2, a couple of years and so forth, is that the group captives piece is clearly bringing, it's growing its share of the overall stop-loss, over the overall medical market.

嗯，我得說，如果用麥肯錫那種不同「地平線（horizons）」的觀點來看，我對地平線 1，也就是未來一年，感覺非常好。我們對地平線 2 也相當有信心，因為我們在三件事上有令人驚喜的收穫。第一，市場某些我們其實不太涉足的領域出現了很多動盪，但我們獲得了第二順位的好處。第二，我們在人才方面有非常好的表現，真的非常好，有很多人才主動向我們靠攏。第三，當我想到地平線 2、也就是接下來幾年時，團體自保（group captives）這一塊顯然正在提升其在整體停損險（stop-loss）以及整體醫療市場中的占比。

And so it's, in some cases, it's a halfway house to companies fully self-insuring and others, it's just a great structure for homogeneous cohorts. And we're surprised. It's just been, we would have thought the TAM was smaller, and it keeps growing and growing and growing for us. And so kind of in the Horizon 1, Horizon 2, I feel good. It's hard to look out beyond that.

因此，在某些情況下，它是企業走向完全自保（self-insuring）的過渡站；在另一些情況下，對同質性群體而言，它就是一個很好的架構。我們也感到驚訝——我們原本以為可服務市場總量（TAM）會更小，但對我們而言它一直在成長、成長、再成長。所以在地平線 1、地平線 2，我感覺良好；但要再往後看就比較難了。

But I also think that we have a team that probably will figure out what's the next product and the next product and the next product because we've done that before.

但我也認為，我們有一個團隊很可能會找出下一個產品、再下一個產品、再下一個產品，因為我們以前就做過。

Michael Zaremski with BMO.

BMO 的 Michael Zaremski。

Nice quarter. A couple numbers questions. So first, on the $30 million to $35 million fee income guide, just the mechanics of that. Should we be looking at the underwriting fee income line item of $10.78 million and netting some of it against the fee-based service expense line item of $4.17 million? And if not, if it was just a $10 million number, is it running better than expected early part of the year?

這一季表現不錯。我有幾個數字方面的問題。首先，關於 3,000 萬到 3,500 萬美元的手續費收入（fee income）指引，就其計算方式而言，我們是否應該看承保手續費收入（underwriting fee income）這個科目 1,078 萬美元，並把其中一部分與按手續費計價的服務費用（fee-based service expense）科目 417 萬美元相抵？如果不是的話，如果它只是 1,000 萬美元的數字，那年初到目前為止是否跑得比預期更好？

Mike, it's Mark. Good question. So just so we're clear for everybody, there, the fee income that we recognized for Apollo was circa $10 million, I'm rounding, and it was about $5 million of expense, right? And you're asking how do I look at that relative to the guidance we gave you of $30 million to $35 million? Clearly, that's what you're asking?

Mike，我是 Mark。好問題。為了讓大家都清楚，我們為 Apollo 認列的手續費收入大約是 1,000 萬美元，我四捨五入一下；相對應的費用大約是 500 萬美元，對吧？而你問的是，這跟我們給你的 3,000 萬到 3,500 萬美元指引之間，應該怎麼看？你問的很明確就是這個，對嗎？

Yes. Thanks, Mark.

是的。謝謝，Mark。

Yes. So I mean, I still believe the guidance holds. And when we guided you to $30 million, $35 million, it was based on the $10 million.

是的。所以我的意思是，我仍然相信這個指引成立。而且當我們給你 3,000 萬到 3,500 萬美元的指引時，是以那 1,000 萬美元為基礎。

Got it.

了解。

Mike, just one other thing I'd like to say is that the $4 million-ish that you see in the service fee expense, that will not grow proportionately with our fees. This is about explicit investments that are being made to support that capability. And so that is a levered number over time. And if you ask, well, can you tell me what the levering looks like, the answer is we're probably not at a place where we can do that for you. But I think it will become clear as we go quarter-over-quarter, the separation, if you will, between the fee income and the service expense that offsets that.

Mike，我還想補充一點：你在服務費用（service fee expense）裡看到的約 400 萬美元，未來不會隨著我們的手續費按比例成長。這主要是為了支援該能力而進行的明確投資。因此，隨時間推進，這會是一個具槓桿效應的數字。如果你問，那你能不能告訴我槓桿化的樣子會是什麼？答案是我們可能還沒到能為你提供那個的階段。但我想隨著季度推進，你會逐季更清楚地看到——如果你願意這麼說——手續費收入與用來抵銷它的服務費用之間的分離。

Got it. That's helpful. And then lastly, unless I'm crazy, I don't see, I've controlled, I don't see any disclosure anymore on the prior year development. I don't think I heard any commentary either. So is there, unless I'm wrong.

了解，這很有幫助。然後最後一個問題，除非我看錯了，我沒有看到——我已經核對過了——我看不到任何關於前期年度發展（prior year development）的揭露了。我想我也沒聽到任何評論。所以，除非我錯了。

So is there any prior year development we should think about?

所以，有沒有任何前期年度發展是我們需要考量的？

Sorry, I did mention it. I may have gone over it very quickly. The answer is no in terms of any prior year development. I can tell you, emergence in the quarter was in line with our expectations. Quite frankly, it was favorable.

抱歉，我確實有提到，可能我講得很快。就任何前期年度發展而言，答案是沒有。我可以告訴你，本季的損失顯現（emergence）符合我們的預期。坦白說，是偏有利的。

I feel we're in a great position on our reserves, both in the US and in London. We're in the best point on our reserves since we've been public.

我覺得我們在準備金方面處於非常有利的位置，無論是在美國還是在倫敦。自從我們上市以來，這是我們準備金狀況最好的時點。

Okay. Got it. So yes, sorry, I wasn't, I didn't have a live transcript open. So it's not in the press release, but it was said on the call. So we'll look out for that in the future.

好的。了解了。所以是的，抱歉，我當時沒有開著即時逐字稿。所以這不在新聞稿裡，但在電話會議上有提到。我們之後會留意這點。

Andrew Kligerman with TD Cowen.

TD Cowen 的 Andrew Kligerman。

A little follow-up on the A&H business, terrific growth there. And if I remember it right, you're more focused on employers with less than 2,500 employees. So the question is what's currently driving the growth? Is it mostly rate? Could you give a little detail on the rate that you're seeing?

針對 A&H 業務再追問一下，那邊成長非常亮眼。而且如果我沒記錯，你們更聚焦於員工數少於 2,500 人的雇主。所以問題是，目前成長主要由什麼驅動？主要是費率嗎？能否稍微說明一下你們看到的費率變化？

And maybe any expansion into larger employers? A little color overall on that.

另外，是否有擴展到更大型雇主？也請整體補充一些背景。

Andrew, thank you for the question. So by the way, on A&H, really the concentration of our accounts tend to be 500 employees and less. I couldn't tell you the exact sort of Pareto holds, but it's not probably not far off from the 80-20 there. And just to answer the last part of your question, right now, we really have no interest in going upmarket. There's some dead bodies on the road side there and probably for good reasons.

Andrew，謝謝你的提問。順帶一提，在 A&H 方面，我們的客戶帳戶集中度其實多半是 500 名員工以下。我無法告訴你精確的帕累托分布，但大概離 80/20 不會太遠。至於你問題的最後一部分，目前我們確實沒有興趣往更大型市場走。那條路邊有些「前車之鑑」，而且可能是有其原因的。

And it doesn't fit with our whole medical cost management kind of model. It just, it's really hard to get that enacted except in the unusual instances. So I think, our sort of our focus is unchanged. For us, there's, in our numbers, there's kind of rate and there's effective rate. And what I mean by that, there are things that we'll do like laser out coverages and so forth that create effective rate.

而且那也不符合我們整體的醫療成本管理模式。除非在少數特殊情況下，否則要真正落地執行非常困難。所以我認為，我們的聚焦方向沒有改變。對我們而言，在數字上有所謂的「名目費率」以及「有效費率」。我的意思是，我們會做一些事情，例如把某些保障用 laser（針對特定個案加註除外/限額）處理等，這些會形成有效費率。

Pure rate is contributing not quite 10% in there, but it's not, it's an important part. Really, the growth, I think, is just simply two factors. One is that we've really kind of hit it with our group captives capability. We've been growing both the number of members, and we've actually been growing the number of captives as well. That capability is really powerful.

純粹的名目費率貢獻不到 10%，但它仍然是重要的一部分。我認為成長主要就是兩個因素。第一，我們在團體 captives（團體自保/風險共保）能力上確實打得很到位。我們不僅會員數在成長，captives 的數量也在增加。這項能力非常強大。

It fits incredibly well with our medical cost management IP and capabilities. And then on just the single employer stop-loss, we, I think I've mentioned this on maybe the last two or three calls, we've really seen a turn in the market. And a lot of that has to do with, in our view, some stumbles of some MGAs. I think part of it is probably the larger company market, the Voya served market kind of finally got realistic. And so maybe there's some second order effects that are dropping down to our market.

它與我們的醫療成本管理的智慧財產與能力高度契合。第二，在單一雇主的停損（stop-loss）方面，我想我在過去兩三次電話會議可能提過，我們確實看到市場出現轉向。我們認為其中很大一部分原因是一些 MGA（管理型一般代理）出現失誤。另一部分可能是大型公司市場、也就是 Voya 服務的那個市場，終於回到較為務實的定價水準。因此可能有一些次級效應往下傳導到我們的市場。

But it's really both areas. And certainly, our single employer stop-loss solution is still a larger part of our book, but we are seeing good growth there, and we're seeing it on the terms that we want, and it's fully utilizing all of our medical cost management IP that are important to us to be able to drive top 5 in the industry loss ratio that we've been driving.

但其實兩個領域都在發生。當然，我們的單一雇主停損解決方案仍然是我們業務組合中較大的一塊，但我們在那裡看到良好的成長，而且是以我們想要的條件在成長，並且充分運用我們所有的醫療成本管理 IP。這對我們很重要，因為它能支撐我們持續推動的、業界前五的損失率表現。

That was very helpful. And maybe shifting over to, I guess, somewhat related to captives specialty segment. So that one was down 13.5%. And if I understand that business, you're kind of attaching at $350,000 and you write a broader mix of lines. And it sounded like from your comments earlier, stop-loss could even be in there, med stop-loss.

這非常有幫助。接著可能轉到另一個，我想算是與 captives 專業分部有些相關的問題。那個分部下滑了 13.5%。如果我對那項業務理解正確，你們大概在 35 萬美元的附加點（attachment point）起保，且承作較廣泛的險種組合。而且從你先前的評論聽起來，停損甚至可能也包含在其中，像是醫療停損。

Where are you seeing the pressures in that segment? And what are the opportunities?

你們在那個分部看到哪些壓力？又有哪些機會？

Yes. No, great question. Really great question. So I mean just for a point of clarity, all of our medical stop-loss business is reported through the A&H division. So I just, so we have captives in the A&H division.

是的。這是個很好的問題，真的很好的問題。先澄清一點：我們所有的醫療停損業務都在 A&H 事業部中揭露與報告。所以，我們在 A&H 事業部裡也有 captives。

We have single, so what you're seeing in the captives division is pure P&C. And I think there's probably two parts to the answer for you. Part number one is the downward pressure, I'll be very direct. We had, in our view, a very irresponsible party come in and basically write a captive in a way that we believe, it will cause a lot of damage. And we weren't going to compete on things that weren't sensible.

我們有單一雇主……所以你在 captives 事業部看到的是純粹的 P&C（財產與意外險）。我想答案大概有兩部分。第一部分是下行壓力，我會很直接：我們認為有一個非常不負責任的競爭者進來，基本上以我們相信會造成很大傷害的方式承作了一個 captive。我們不會在不合理的條件上競爭。

And I, and maybe that tells you a little about the market, by the way. That happened at the end of last year. So somebody was basically trying to close out their books. It hasn't happened before, and it hasn't happened since. But that was a unique instance, and that's really what you're seeing run through the numbers.

而且，順帶一提，這也多少反映了市場狀況。那件事發生在去年年底。有人基本上是在試圖把他們的帳簿結清。以前沒發生過，之後也沒再發生。但那是一次特殊事件，而你在數字裡看到的主要就是那個影響。

On the flip side, Andrew, I'd point to our really interesting success stories. For example, our captive that uses a technology company called Understory Weather to do micro weather analysis for dealer open lot, which has been an unbelievably successful and quite unique solution because you don't see too many property captives out there, and we're in our, whatever our fifth year in that captive. And I think our view is we're looking for more of those kinds of opportunities. Interestingly enough, our partners in London, in 1971, given some of the things that are happening in autonomy, open up some really interesting opportunities. I'll also remind you that Apollo as part of its partner syndicates has the only Lloyd's captive with a large technology company.

另一方面，Andrew，我會指向一些非常有趣的成功案例。比如說，我們有一個 captive 使用一家名為 Understory Weather 的科技公司，為經銷商露天停車場做微氣候天氣分析。這是一個極其成功且相當獨特的解決方案，因為市場上不常見到財產險 captive，而我們已經在那個 captive 的第……不管怎麼說，第五年了。我們的看法是，我們正在尋找更多這類機會。很有意思的是，我們在倫敦的合作夥伴 1971，鑑於自動化領域正在發生的一些事情，正在開啟一些非常有趣的機會。我也提醒你，Apollo 作為其合作辛迪加的一部分，擁有唯一一個與大型科技公司合作的勞合社（Lloyd's） captive。

So we think about potential interesting collaborations and partnerships that way. So I think that what we're not going to be doing is just doing the run-of-the-mill stuff. It's going to be about innovation in that area. And those things take time. But when they come across, they come across in a way that can really be highly additive to your earnings and growth as well.

所以我們會從這個角度思考潛在的有趣協作與合作夥伴關係。我認為我們不會去做那些一般常見、制式化的業務；而是要在那個領域做創新。這些事情需要時間，但一旦成形，往往能以非常顯著的方式增厚你的獲利與成長。

Andrew Anderson with Jefferies.

Jefferies 的 Andrew Anderson。

Maybe just one for me. I think, I heard the rate change on the Apollo business was low-single digit ex property, maybe a little bit lower than I would have thought considering 45%-ish of that business is shared economy or liability. Maybe you could just talk about where you see that rate change in the Apollo business going? Is this maybe an intentional decision to be more competitive given the results here? Or maybe the liability and shared economy pricing is a bit higher than that?

我這邊可能只有一題。我想我聽到 Apollo 業務的費率變化（不含財產險）是低個位數，可能比我預期的還低一些，考量到那塊業務大約 45% 左右是共享經濟或責任險。你能談談你們認為 Apollo 業務的費率變化接下來會往哪裡走嗎？這是否是基於目前結果、刻意做出更具競爭力的決策？或者其實責任險與共享經濟的定價比那個數字更高？

Andrew, thank you for the question. No, actually, it's neither of those things. Quite honestly, it's just mix. There is, on a written basis, in the US, as an example, the quarter-to-quarter numbers on property can influence the, and it has, by the way, in the past, the rate reporting. It's even more extreme given the cyclicality or the seasonality of mix through the Apollo segment.

Andrew，謝謝你的提問。不，其實兩者都不是。老實說，這只是組合（mix）因素。以美國為例，在簽單口徑下，財產險在季度之間的變化會影響費率揭露，而且過去也確實如此。由於 Apollo 分部的組合具有週期性或季節性，這種影響會更為極端。

So the way I would say back to you, Andrew, is we reported out the sort of the domain of the number, but that's as much sort of seasonality. And in fact, even like your reference to the, within 1971, there's very little of that being autonomy at all as an example. And so I just would say stay tuned because that number will move based on what division inside of 1969 and 1971 is really kind of the seasonally high gross written premium in any given quarter. And I don't, I just don't think I'd read too much into it.

所以我會這樣回覆你，Andrew：我們已經揭露了該數字的大致區間，但那更多反映的是季節性。事實上，就像你提到的，在 1971 裡面，以自動化為例，那類業務其實非常少。所以我只想說請持續關注，因為那個數字會隨著 1969 與 1971 內部哪個事業部在某一季度出現季節性較高的毛簽保費而變動。我不認為需要過度解讀。

And just a quick one, that's a gross rate number, I imagine?

再快速問一題，那是毛費率（gross rate）數字，我想是吧？

It is, everything we report out on is a gross rate number. And that's important that you ask that because, for example, within some of our divisions, like global property, our gross versus our net rate, our net rate is actually negative mid-single digits where the gross rate is negative mid-teens. And that's, in our case in Skyward Specialty in the US, that's because of the use of fact and how that market is behaving. And some of that is similar in Apollo relative to the gross versus net, but we always report out on a gross rate, gross pure rate.

是的，我們對外揭露的全部都是毛費率數字。你問這個很重要，因為例如在我們某些事業部，像是全球財產險，我們的毛費率與淨費率差異很大：淨費率其實是負的中個位數，而毛費率是負的中十位數。在我們的情況下，在美國的 Skyward Specialty，這是因為使用了 FAC（臨分再保）以及該市場的運作方式所致。Apollo 在毛與淨之間也有一些類似情況，但我們一律揭露毛費率、毛的純費率（gross pure rate）。

I am showing no further questions at this time. And I will now turn the call back over to Natalie for closing remarks.

目前顯示沒有其他提問。我現在把電話會議交回給 Natalie 作結語。

Thanks, everyone, for your questions, for participating in our conference call and for your continued interest in and support of Skyward Group. I am available after the call to answer any additional questions that you may have. We look forward to speaking with you again on our second quarter 2026 earnings call. Thank you, and have a wonderful day.

謝謝各位的提問、參與我們的電話會議，以及持續關注並支持 Skyward Group。我在會後也會留下來，回答各位可能有的其他問題。我們期待在 2026 年第二季財報電話會議上再次與各位交流。謝謝，祝各位有美好的一天。

This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating, and you may now disconnect.

今天的電話會議到此結束。感謝各位參與，現在可以掛線。