W. R. Berkley Corporation (WRB) 2026 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us, and welcome to the W. R. Berkley Corporation first-quarter 2026 earnings call. This conference call is being recorded. (Operator Instructions)

各位女士、先生，感謝各位加入我們，歡迎參加 W. R. Berkley Corporation 2026 年第一季財報電話會議。本次電話會議將被錄音。(接線員指示)

The speakers' remarks may contain forward-looking statements. Some of the forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking words, including without limitation, beliefs, expects or estimates. We caution you that such forward-looking statements should not be regarded as a representation by us that the future plans, estimates or expectations contemplated by us will, in fact, be achieved.

講者的發言可能包含前瞻性陳述。部分前瞻性陳述可透過使用前瞻性用語辨識，包括但不限於「相信」、「預期」或「估計」。我們提醒您，此類前瞻性陳述不應被視為我們對於所構想之未來計畫、估計或預期將在事實上得以實現的表示。

Please refer to our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, and our other filings made with the SEC for a description of the business environment in which we operate and the important factors that may materially affect our results.

請參閱我們截至 2025 年 12 月 31 日止年度的 Form 10-K 年報，以及我們向美國證券交易委員會（SEC）提交的其他文件，以了解我們所處之營運環境，以及可能對我們業績造成重大影響的重要因素。

W. R. Berkley Corporation is not under any obligation and expressly disclaims any such obligation to update or alter its forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

W. R. Berkley Corporation 不負任何義務，並明確否認任何更新或修正其前瞻性陳述之義務，不論係因新資訊、未來事件或其他原因所致。

I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Rob Berkley. Please go ahead, sir.

現在我想把電話交給 Rob Berkley 先生。先生，請開始。

Alexandra, thank you very much, and good afternoon to all. Thank you for finding time in your calendars to join us. My colleagues and I, we appreciate your interest in the company.

Alexandra，非常感謝，並向各位致上下午好。感謝各位在行程中撥冗參與。我和同事們非常感謝各位對本公司的關注。

So speaking of colleagues joining me on this end of the phone, we also have Executive Chairman, Bill Berkley; as well as our Group Chief Financial Officer, Rich Baio. We're going to follow a similar path to what we have used in the past where I'm going to offer a few more quick comments. Then Rich is going to provide us a summary on the quarter.

談到與我一同在線上的同事，我們也有執行董事長 Bill Berkley，以及集團財務長 Rich Baio。我們將延續過去的流程：我會先做幾點簡短補充。接著由 Rich 為我們摘要本季表現。

I will follow behind with a few additional thoughts, and then we will be very pleased to take your questions and the conversation in any direction you wish to take it.

之後我會再補充幾點想法，然後我們很樂意回答各位的問題，並依各位希望的方向展開討論。

Before I do hand it over to Rich, just a couple of observations for me, perhaps a bit stating the obvious. One is let there be no confusion. This continues to be very much a cyclical industry. As we've discussed in the past, the cycle is driven by two human emotions, greed and fear. And without a doubt, these days, it would seem as though the fear is fading and the greed is fully percolating in many of the corners of the marketplace today.

在把時間交給 Rich 之前，我先分享幾點觀察，或許有些是顯而易見的。第一點是請不要有任何誤解。這仍然是一個高度循環性的產業。如同我們過去討論過的，循環由兩種人類情緒所驅動：貪婪與恐懼。而毫無疑問，就目前而言，市場許多角落似乎恐懼正在消退，而貪婪正全面升溫。

One of the things that we've talked about in the past couple of quarters is where is some of this competition coming from or much of this competition coming from. We've talked about MGAs and MGUs delegated authority, a lot of that capacity coming from a variety of different sources, in particular, the reinsurance market as well as we talked about Lloyd's as a marketplace providing a lot of capacity to delegated authority.

過去幾季我們談到的一個議題是：部分或多數競爭究竟來自何處。我們談過 MGA 與 MGU 的授權承保（delegated authority），其中許多承保能力來自多元來源，尤其是再保市場；此外我們也談到勞合社（Lloyd's）作為市場，為授權承保提供了大量承保能力。

One of the things that we've taken note of over the past 90 days or so is a notable shift in the appetite of the standard market, in particular, national carriers who seem to be broadening their appetite and having reached a new level of, I would suggest, competitive nature that we haven't seen in some number of years, though it tends to be focused in certain pockets.

在過去約 90 天左右，我們注意到標準市場的承保胃納出現明顯轉變，特別是全國性保險公司似乎正在擴大其承保偏好，並達到一個我認為是更具競爭性的全新程度，這是我們多年未見的情況，儘管其仍集中在某些特定領域。

A couple of other comments on the marketplace, focusing on the reinsurance market for a moment. I think no surprise, property and property cat within the reinsurance space it has been more and more competitive. We're not surprised with it directionally, but we have been taken aback a bit by the pace of change and how that level of competition has really taken hold at an accelerating pace.

再就市場補充幾點，先聚焦再保市場。我想不令人意外的是，在再保領域中，財產險與財產巨災（property cat）變得愈來愈競爭。方向上我們並不意外，但競爭加劇的變化速度，以及這種競爭程度以加速的步伐迅速成形，確實讓我們有些措手不及。

In addition to that, the casualty market or the liability market within the reinsurance space never seemed to have gotten much of the bounce that we saw in the property market. Nevertheless, it remains very competitive. And we remain concerned for the health and well-being of that marketplace over time, as there is more competition in the property market, that will undoubtedly, at least history would suggest, create more irrational behavior that will be plentiful in both the property cat market as well as the liability market.

此外，在再保領域中的意外險或責任險市場，似乎從未像財產險市場那樣出現明顯反彈。儘管如此，它仍然非常競爭。而我們也持續擔憂該市場長期的健康狀況；因為當財產險市場競爭更激烈時，毫無疑問——至少歷史經驗顯示——將引發更多非理性行為，並且在財產巨災市場與責任險市場中都會大量出現。

A couple of thoughts on the insurance marketplace, speaking of property and how it can turn into a marketplace that quickly erodes. We are definitely seeing that, particularly with cat exposed property on the insurance side. GL and umbrella, I would suggest are areas where rate is still available with good reason. Professional, as we've talked about in the past, continues to be a mixed bag.

再談幾點保險市場的看法，尤其是財產險以及其如何可能迅速演變成一個快速侵蝕的市場。我們確實看到了這種情況，特別是在保險端的巨災曝險財產險。一般責任險（GL）與超額責任險（umbrella），我認為仍有費率上調空間，而且理由充分。專業責任險如同我們過去所談，仍然呈現好壞參半的狀況。

D&O remains one that we are very focused on and seems to be continuing to flirt with the bottom. On the other hand, EPLI in certain jurisdictions is an area from our perspective to be very cautious. I would call out California, particularly Southern California, as one that we are paying close attention to. Speaking of California as it relates to workers' compensation, we've talked about in the past, and we remain convinced that California this time around is out in front of much of the broader workers' comp market.

董監事責任險（D&O）仍是我們高度關注的領域，且似乎持續在底部徘徊。另一方面，就業實務責任險（EPLI）在某些司法管轄區，從我們的角度來看需要非常謹慎。我特別點名加州，尤其是南加州，是我們密切關注的地區。談到加州與勞工補償險（workers' compensation）的關係，我們過去談過，且我們仍深信這一次加州走在更廣泛勞工補償市場的前面。

And without a doubt, all eyes remain on the WCIRB, and what is to come in the not-too-distant future. And at the possibility of, I guess, finishing on a bit of a low note, I guess, auto would continue to be an area of great concern from our perspective. It's unclear to us that the marketplace has really wrapped their head around loss cost trend and what action needs to be taken.

毫無疑問，所有人的目光仍聚焦在 WCIRB，以及不久的將來可能出現的發展。如果要以稍微偏低的語氣作結，我想汽車保險從我們的角度仍會是高度關切的領域。我們尚不清楚市場是否真正理解損失成本趨勢（loss cost trend），以及需要採取何種行動。

Looking at the punchline before I hand it over to Rich, is that at the intersection of a cyclical industry, a focus on risk-adjusted return, undoubtedly is a concept that we subscribe to and hopefully, others do, known as cycle management. The good news for us, as we exercise cycle management, the decoupling of product lines as to where they are in the cycle, combined with the breadth of our offering allows us to be more resilient than many of our peers that have a narrow offering.

在把時間交給 Rich 之前先講結論：在一個循環性產業中，聚焦風險調整後報酬無疑是我們所奉行、也希望其他人同樣奉行的概念，也就是所謂的循環管理（cycle management）。對我們而言的好消息是，當我們執行循環管理時，各產品線在循環中的位置彼此脫鉤，再加上我們產品供給的廣度，使我們比許多產品線較為單一的同業更具韌性。

So why don't I pause there? And speaking of resilient, Rich, over to you, please.

那我先在這裡暫停。說到韌性，Rich，請接棒。

Great. Thanks, Rob. Good afternoon, everyone.

好的。謝謝你，Rob。各位下午好。

First quarter marked an excellent start to 2026 with record net investment income and strong underwriting profits contributing to a return on beginning of year stockholders' equity of 21.2%. Net income for the quarter was $515 million or $1.31 per share, while record operating income was $514 million or $1.30 per share. Other drivers benefiting the quarter compared to the prior year included lower catastrophe losses and an improved effective tax rate.

第一季為 2026 年帶來極佳的開局：淨投資收益創下新高，且強勁的承保利潤推動年初股東權益報酬率達 21.2%。本季淨利為 5.15 億美元，或每股 1.31 美元；同時，營業利益創新高，為 5.14 億美元，或每股 1.30 美元。相較去年同期，本季的其他有利因素包括巨災損失較低，以及有效稅率改善。

Starting with underwriting performance, current accident year combined ratio, excluding cat losses, was 88.3%, and the calendar year combined ratio was 90.7%. The difference was current accident year cat losses of 2.4 loss ratio points or $76 million compared with the prior year of $111 million or 3.7 loss ratio points. Unlike last year, which was heavily influenced by California wildfires in the first quarter, this year, the industry experienced significant winter storm activity occurring in January and February.

先從承保表現談起：扣除巨災損失後，本期事故年度（current accident year）綜合率為 88.3%，而曆年（calendar year）綜合率為 90.7%。兩者差異在於本期事故年度的巨災損失為損失率 2.4 個百分點（或 7,600 萬美元），相較去年為 1.11 億美元（或損失率 3.7 個百分點）。不同於去年第一季受加州野火重大影響，今年整體產業在 1 月與 2 月經歷了顯著的冬季風暴活動。

The current accident year loss ratio ex cats for 2026 was 59.7% compared with 59.4% for the prior year which reflects a shift in business mix as we look to maximize profitability. The insurance segment's current accident year loss ratio ex cat increased 10 basis points to 60.9%, while the reinsurance and monoline access segment increased to 51.1%. The expense ratio of 28.6% is comparable to the recent sequential quarters and reflects a small impact from the decline in net premiums earned from the reinsurance and monoline access segment.

2026 年當期事故年度（不含巨災）的損失率為 59.7%，相較前一年度的 59.4%，反映出我們為了最大化獲利能力而進行的業務組合轉移。保險事業部當期事故年度（不含巨災）損失率上升 10 個基點至 60.9%，而再保險與單一險種通路（monoline access）事業部則上升至 51.1%。28.6% 的費用率與近期連續季度相當，並反映出再保險與單一險種通路事業部已賺保費淨額下降所帶來的些微影響。

We continue to believe that the 2026 expense ratio will be comfortably below 30%, barring any material changes in the marketplace.

我們仍然相信，除非市場出現任何重大變化，否則 2026 年的費用率將可明顯維持在 30% 以下。

On top-line production, despite heightened competition in certain pockets of the market, the insurance segment grew gross premiums written by 4.5% to $3.4 billion and net premiums written by 3.2% to $2.8 billion.

在保費產出（top-line production）方面，儘管市場某些區塊競爭加劇，保險事業部的簽單毛保費仍成長 4.5% 至 34 億美元，簽單淨保費成長 3.2% 至 28 億美元。

As you can see from the supplemental information on page 7 of the earnings release, net premiums written grew in all lines of business, apart from workers' compensation. The reinsurance and monoline access segment reported net premiums written of $395 million, reflecting decreases in property and casualty lines of business.

如你們在財報新聞稿第 7 頁的補充資訊所見，除工傷補償險（workers' compensation）外，所有業務線的簽單淨保費皆有成長。再保險與單一險種通路事業部的簽單淨保費為 3.95 億美元，反映出財產險與意外險（property and casualty）業務線的下滑。

Net investment income increased 12.2% to a record $404 million driven by growth in the core portfolio of 11.8% to $354 million and an increase in investment fund income of 46.3% to $40 million. As a reminder, we report the investment funds under one quarter lag and an average quarterly range for investment fund income is $10 million to $20 million. We expect that strong operating cash flow of $668 million in the current quarter should continue to contribute to the growth in that investment if some.

淨投資收益成長 12.2% 至創紀錄的 4.04 億美元，主要由核心投資組合成長 11.8% 至 3.54 億美元，以及投資基金收益增加 46.3% 至 4,000 萬美元所帶動。提醒一下，我們對投資基金採用落後一季（one quarter lag）認列，而投資基金收益的季度平均區間為 1,000 萬至 2,000 萬美元。我們預期本季強勁的營運現金流 6.68 億美元，若部分持續投入該投資，應可繼續促進其成長。

The duration of our fixed maturity portfolio, including cash and cash equivalents increased during the quarter to 3.1 years, which remains below the average life of our insurance reserves. The credit quality of the investment portfolio continues to improve to a very strong AA-. The effective tax rate in the first quarter was lower than our normalized run rate of 23%, plus or minus which is usually attributable to higher taxes on foreign earnings and the ability to utilize such foreign tax credits.

本季我們的固定到期投資組合（包含現金及約當現金）存續期間增加至 3.1 年，仍低於我們保險準備金的平均存續期間。投資組合的信用品質持續改善，達到非常強勁的 AA-。第一季有效稅率低於我們常態化的 23%（上下浮動），通常可歸因於海外盈餘較高的稅負，以及能夠運用此類海外稅額抵免。

In the current quarter, we reflected a net nonrecurring tax benefit, reducing our effective tax rate from 22.8% to 16.3% as reported. We expect the remainder of 2026 will return to our normalized run rate. During the quarter, we repurchased approximately 4.5 million common shares amounting to $302 million and paid regular dividends of $34 million. Stockholders' equity increased to approximately $9.75 billion despite the significant capital management.

本季我們反映了一項淨一次性（nonrecurring）稅務利益，使我們的有效稅率由 22.8% 降至報表所示的 16.3%。我們預期 2026 年剩餘期間將回到常態化水準。本季我們回購約 450 萬股普通股，金額 3.02 億美元，並支付例行股利 3,400 萬美元。儘管進行了顯著的資本管理，股東權益仍增加至約 97.5 億美元。

In summary, another positive quarter with meaningful growth in earnings and 21% plus return on beginning equity. Rob, I'll turn it back to you.

總結而言，本季再度表現正向，獲利顯著成長，期初股東權益報酬率達 21% 以上。Rob，我把時間交還給你。

Thank you, Rich. A little disappointed that this isn't our new run rate on the tax front. I guess you got a whole quarter to figure that out.

謝謝你，Rich。有點失望的是，稅務方面這不是我們新的常態水準。我想你還有整整一季可以把這件事搞清楚。

Yes.

是的。

So let me just offer a couple of more quick sound bites and then we'll move on to Q&A. First off, you would have taken a note on the rate came in reasonably healthy at the 7.2% ex comp just as another perhaps relevant data point. The renewal retention ratio continues to sit at around 80% and that thing fluctuates between 78.5% and 81.5%. It doesn't move very much.

那我再補充幾個簡短重點，然後我們就進入問答。首先，你們應該注意到，費率表現相當健康，剔除工傷補償險後為 7.2%，作為另一個可能相關的數據點。續保留存率（renewal retention ratio）仍約在 80% 左右，通常在 78.5% 到 81.5% 之間波動。變動幅度不大。

And I look at it as one barometer to really understand whether we are turning the book or not in our efforts to get rates. So that's an encouraging sign from my perspective.

我把它視為一個指標，用來真正了解我們在爭取費率的努力下，是否正在調整（turning）這本業務。所以從我的角度看，這是一個令人鼓舞的訊號。

Just another quick sound bite on the topic of rate. And we touched on this briefly when we had our fourth quarter call, and I think you're going to see it come into more and more focus. We've taken a tremendous amount of rate over not just the past couple of quarters, the past few years. I think there are many pockets of the organization we're feeling very good with what the margin is.

再就費率議題補充一個簡短重點。我們在第四季電話會議時曾簡要提到，我認為你們會看到這點越來越清晰。不只是過去幾季，過去幾年我們都大幅調升了費率。我認為組織內有許多區塊，對目前的利潤率感到非常滿意。

And the -- I guess, the need for rate is perhaps not going to be as strong going forward. So what's the punchline? We are actively rethinking what the balance is between rate versus growth. And over the coming quarters, you may see us take our foot slightly off the rate pedal and look to push harder on the growth in particular lines where we see the margin is particularly attractive and exposure growth is of more interest to us than rate.

因此——我想，未來對費率的需求可能不會像過去那麼強。那重點是什麼？我們正在積極重新思考「費率」與「成長」之間的平衡。在接下來幾季，你們可能會看到我們稍微放鬆費率的力道，並在特定業務線上更用力推動成長；在那些業務線中，我們認為利潤率特別具吸引力，且相較於費率，曝險成長對我們更有吸引力。

Rich talked about the top-line overall growth. It was obviously some pretty separate and distinct pieces, and it does map back at least in my mind, to the topic of cycle management. You would have seen, we took a pretty firm position, which, quite frankly, given our comments in the Q4 call and earlier last year, shouldn't have surprised anyone. We all know what's been going on with the rate. We've been very transparent about our view on the casualty or liability lines.

Rich 談到了整體營收端的成長。顯然其中包含一些相當分離且不同的組成部分，而至少在我看來，這也呼應到景氣循環管理（cycle management）的議題。你們應該也看到，我們採取了相當堅定的立場；坦白說，考量我們在第四季電話會議以及去年更早時的評論，這不應該讓任何人感到意外。我們都知道費率一直在發生什麼事。我們對意外險或責任險（casualty or liability）業務線的看法一直非常透明。

And the discipline that we'll be exercising there and kudos to our colleagues that are actually putting that discipline into practice.

以及我們將在那裡所採取的紀律；也要稱讚我們的同仁，確實把這些紀律落實到實務上。

The other side of the coin, as Rich pointed out, we are still finding opportunities to grow within the insurance space, clearly, a bit of a mixed bag. I think the note between the gross versus net, again, highlights, hopefully, in the eyes of those that are observing that this is probably a moment, generally speaking, where it's better to be a buyer of reinsurance than a seller of reinsurance, hence the delta between the gross and the net.

另一方面，如 Rich 所指出，我們仍在保險領域中找到成長機會；當然，情況有些參差不齊。我認為毛保費與淨保費之間的差異，再次凸顯（希望在觀察者眼中）一般而言，現在可能是「買再保」比「賣再保」更好的時點，因此毛與淨之間才會出現這樣的差距。

I do think -- just a final quick comment on the top line. In the insurance space, there is a reasonable chance that we will see a bit more growth as the year unfolds, and we are revisiting this notion of balance between growth and rate. Pivoting over quickly to the loss ratio. I think in a nutshell, it's winter storms. We had more exposure to that than some.

我確實認為——最後再對營收端做個簡短評論。在保險領域，隨著年度推進，我們有相當機會看到更多成長，而我們也正在重新檢視成長與費率之間的平衡概念。接著快速轉到損失率。我想簡而言之，就是冬季風暴。我們對此的曝險比某些同業更高。

That having been said, we think it is still a good trade. The comments on the expense ratio. I share very much Rich's view that we'll be keeping it below 30. The movement that you would have seen in the reinsurance and excess segment, was primarily a result of a reduction in premium on the reinsurance front. Switching over to the investment portfolio for a moment. And Rich flagged for you all the strength of the quality with a very strong AA- almost flirting with a AA.

話雖如此，我們仍認為這是一筆划算的交易。至於費用率的評論。我非常同意 Rich 的看法，我們會把它維持在 30% 以下。你們在再保險與超額（excess）事業部看到的變動，主要是再保險端保費下降所致。再切換到投資組合談一下。Rich 已向各位指出其品質的強勁，信用評等非常強的 AA-，幾乎接近 AA。

But a couple of other points that I would flag is that the book yield on the portfolio is about 4.7%. New money rate is 5% plus. So we still got some room there for improvement. In addition to that, the duration, as Rich pointed out, is sitting at 3.1 years. As a friendly reminder, the average life of our loss reserves, which is a big part of what we're investing is a hair inside of four years.

不過我還想補充幾點：投資組合的帳面殖利率（book yield）約為 4.7%。新增資金利率（new money rate）在 5% 以上。因此我們仍有一些改善空間。此外，如 Rich 所指出，存續期間目前為 3.1 年。友善提醒一下，我們損失準備金的平均存續期間（也是我們投資資金的重要來源）略低於 4 年。

So what's the punchline? The punchline is a couple of things. One, the quality is high. There's opportunity with the book yield moving up and we have flexibility around pushing that duration out which is a plus as well. So even if you discount the growth in the portfolio due to the strength of the cash flow that Rich was referencing, which is there, is real and you see it quarter after quarter.

那麼重點是什麼？重點有幾件事。第一，品質很高。隨著投資組合殖利率上升，我們有機會，而且我們在拉長久期方面也有彈性，這同樣是加分。因此，即便你把 Rich 所提到、由強勁現金流帶動的投資組合成長先扣除不看——那確實存在、是真實的，而且你一季接一季都看得到。

But even if you put that aside, there is meaningful upside on the -- depending on whether you look at the overall including cash, $28 billion or if you want to back out the cash $25.5 billion, there's meaningful upside from there, both because of growth of investable assets as well as the new money rate, which, again, with the duration we have, flexibility.

但即使先把那部分放一邊，仍然有相當可觀的上行空間——取決於你是看包含現金在內的整體 280 億美元，或是把現金扣除後的 255 億美元；從那個水準往上都有顯著的上行空間，原因同時來自可投資資產的成長以及新資金利率；而且再一次，憑藉我們目前的久期，我們具備彈性。

On the topic of flexibility, and I promise last topic for me, at least for the moment, is capital. And I know it's not something that we spend a lot of time talking about on these calls, but I did want to draw folks' attention to it. And that is our financial leverage, which is sitting at about 22.6% these days, which is a -- I don't know if it's an all-time low, but it's an all-time low in my -- some number of decades at the organization.

談到彈性——我保證這是我最後一個主題，至少就目前而言——是資本。我知道這不是我們在這些電話會議上花很多時間討論的事情，但我確實想提醒大家注意。也就是我們的財務槓桿，目前大約在 22.6% 左右；我不知道這是否是歷史最低，但以我在這家公司——幾十年的時間尺度——來看，這是歷史低點。

I think it's important to take note of that for a couple of reasons. Number one, when you look at the returns that we're generating, we're generating it with a much higher level of capital or equity for that matter, more specifically in the business.

我認為基於幾個原因，這點很值得留意。第一，當你看我們正在產生的報酬時，我們是在以更高水準的資本、或更精確地說，以更高水準的股東權益投入在業務中來產生這些報酬。

Number two, I would draw your attention to the fact that we, as an organization, do not have an expectation for 22.6% to keep going down from here. This is a very comfortable place. We think we've got lots of room if an opportunity presented itself.

第二，我想請大家注意的是，我們作為一個組織，並不預期 22.6% 會從這裡繼續往下走。這是一個非常舒適的位置。我們認為如果有機會出現，我們還有很大的空間可以運用。

So what does that mean? That means if you look at this business that's earning, I don't know, between $1.750 billion and $2 billion and something a year, give or take. And you think about where our leverage ratios are, what that means is we are generating capital significantly more quickly than we can consume it and that we will have significant amounts of capital to return to shareholders for the foreseeable.

那這代表什麼？這代表如果你看這個業務一年大概賺取——我不知道——約 17.5 億到 20 億美元上下，或多或少。再想想我們的槓桿比率所在的位置，這意味著我們產生資本的速度顯著快於我們消耗資本的速度，因此在可預見的未來，我們將有可觀的資本可以回饋給股東。

And to that end, even with us doing that, we still have a tremendous amount of flexibility to take advantage of whatever unforeseen opportunities may be coming our way. So I flagged that because what you saw in the quarter with the repurchase, what you've seen us do with special dividends and recognizing the earnings power of the business and how we see the growth opportunities before us that we are going to, in all likelihood, have large amounts of capital to continue to return to shareholders and what we believe is the most effective and efficient way that is in the best interest of our shareholders.

而且就算我們這麼做，我們仍然有非常大的彈性，可以把握任何可能迎面而來、未曾預料的機會。所以我特別提出這點，因為你在本季看到的庫藏股回購、你也看到我們發放特別股利；結合對這項業務獲利能力的認知，以及我們對眼前成長機會的看法，我們很可能會持續有大量資本可以回饋給股東，並以我們認為最有效率、最具效益、且符合股東最佳利益的方式來進行。

So I know we talk about repurchase every now and then. People talk about special dividends, but I just wanted to put those data points out there. And again, we can talk more about it during the Q&A if people wish to, but it seemed like that was a relevant topic of the day.

所以我知道我們偶爾會談到回購。大家也會談到特別股利，但我只是想把這些數據點提出來。同樣地，如果大家願意，我們也可以在問答環節再多談一些；但這看起來是今天一個相關的主題。

So why don't we take a pause there, Alexandra, if we could please open it up for questions.

那我們先在這裡暫停一下，Alexandra，麻煩你開放提問。

(Operator Instructions) Elyse Greenspan, Wells Fargo.

(接線員指示) Elyse Greenspan，富國銀行。

My first question, I guess I'm just trying to, Rob, square away your comments, right? You started off by saying just pointing to greed and fear in the market and then you were talking about standard market carriers especially national carriers, right, that brought in appetite and pointing to the market getting more competitive.

我的第一個問題，我想我只是想釐清一下，Rob，你的評論，對吧？你一開始提到市場中的貪婪與恐懼，接著你談到標準市場的承保公司，尤其是全國性承保公司，對吧？他們帶來了承保意願，並指出市場變得更具競爭性。

But then you also right, ended your comments by saying that there's perhaps some better opportunities to push for a little less price and show better growth. So can you just help me square what felt like introductory comments that it is tough.

但接著你也在最後說，或許有一些更好的機會，可以在價格上少要求一點、以換取更好的成長。所以你能否幫我把這兩者對起來？因為你開場的評論讓人感覺情勢很艱難。

Thank you for the question, Elyse. And what I perhaps was not as clear as I should have been with my opening comments is that I think there are still pockets where there is good opportunity. I think a lot of those pockets tend to be more casualty related. We, as an organization, have a bent towards casualty as opposed to shorter tail lines, particularly property where the competition is most pronounced.

謝謝你的問題，Elyse。我在開場評論中可能沒有表達得像我應該的那麼清楚：我認為仍然有一些區塊存在不錯的機會。我認為其中很多區塊往往更偏向意外險（casualty）。我們作為一個組織，相較於較短尾的險種，特別是競爭最為激烈的財產險（property），我們更偏重意外險。

So do I think overall, the market is a bit more competitive today than it was yesterday? Yes, I do. Do I think there are still pockets of the marketplace that we are a meaningful participant that offer opportunity? Yes, I do.

所以我是否認為整體而言，市場今天比昨天更具競爭性？是的，我認為是。我是否認為市場上仍有一些我們深度參與、且提供機會的區塊？是的，我認為有。

Okay. And then as we triangulate that in terms of just thinking about premium growth? And I guess, my comment is more focused on the insurance segment, right? It got slightly better this quarter. But I think from your comments on last quarter's call, right, I think you had insinuated growth in January might have been within range of 7%, right? So we could see the things -- it seems like slowed in February and March.

好的。那麼當我們從保費成長的角度來交叉驗證這點時呢？我想我的問題更聚焦在保險部門，對吧？本季稍微好一些。但我記得你在上季電話會議的評論中，對吧？你似乎暗示 1 月的成長可能在 7% 的區間內，對吧？所以我們可能看到——看起來 2 月和 3 月放慢了。

So how are you thinking about just the level of pickup of growth that we could see -- and do you expect that in the Q2?

那你如何看待我們可能看到的成長回升幅度——你預期在第二季會出現嗎？

I don't know -- you're right, [Anthony], there's a lag. Sorry to interrupt you, Elyse. I beg your pardon, there's a bit of a lag on the line. But I think to answer your question, and maybe we confused the situation, if we did, apologies. But we actually saw the top line improve as we made our way through the quarter as opposed to the other way around. So January was not our -- it did not prove to be our best month.

我不知道——你說得對，[Anthony]，線路上有延遲。抱歉打斷你，Elyse。請原諒，線路確實有點延遲。但我想回答你的問題，而且如果我們讓情況變得更混亂了——若是如此，先致歉。但其實我們在本季進行的過程中，營收（top line）是逐步改善的，而不是相反。所以 1 月並不是——它並沒有證明是我們表現最好的月份。

Okay. But then -- so for your comments about growth getting better, I guess, my last question, is that a Q2 comment? Is that more maybe Q3, Q4, just based on how you see that today.

好的。但那麼——所以你提到成長變得更好，我想我最後一個問題是：那是針對第二季的評論嗎？還是更可能是第三季、第四季，取決於你目前的觀察。

We are hopeful that we will be able to do better in Q2, but I can't promise that right now. What I can tell you is that we, as an organization, oftentimes are quoting 90 days out, sometimes 60 days out, sometimes even longer than 90 days out. So as we identify pockets where we are willing to make a trade as far as maybe a bit less rate in order for a bit more growth, it takes a little bit of time for that to come into focus.

我們希望第二季能做得更好，但我現在無法保證。我能告訴你的是，我們作為一個組織，很多時候是提前 90 天報價，有時提前 60 天，有時甚至超過 90 天。因此，當我們辨識出一些區塊，願意在定價上做取捨——例如為了多一些成長而接受稍微低一些的費率——需要一點時間才會逐漸顯現成效。

How that will play out, I can't promise that. I know what I've talked to my colleagues about, and I hear from them how they're thinking about things, and that's what I'm trying to share with you. So I can't promise that in Q2, we will grow x amount more. We'll have to see how it unfolds. But I am trying to give you a little bit of a flavor as to what the dialogue is within our clubhouse.

最終會如何發展，我無法保證。我知道我和同事們談過什麼，也從他們那裡聽到他們如何思考，而這就是我試著與你分享的內容。所以我無法保證第二季我們會多成長 x%。我們得看事情如何演變。但我想讓你稍微感受到，我們內部在討論些什麼。

Rob Cox, Goldman Sachs.

Rob Cox，高盛。

Just first question on property. I hear your comments this quarter and in recent quarters that the property dynamics are repeating themselves. I'm curious where you think property is from a price adequacy perspective, whether it's ROE or whatever metric, and how you would bifurcate across insurance, reinsurance and maybe by geography?

第一個問題關於財產險。我聽到你在本季以及最近幾季的評論，提到財產險的市場動態正在重演。我想了解，從價格是否足夠（無論是ROE或其他指標）的角度來看，你認為財產險目前處於什麼位置？以及你會如何在保險、再保險之間，並可能按地理區域來做區分？

So I think that's a pretty big question from my perspective. I think that there's still margin in a lot of places, but it's fallen off pretty quickly. I think it's fallen off most quickly in the reinsurance marketplace. I think then it would waterfall down into cat exposed or E&S property and probably the place where there's been the least level of sea change would be the admitted or standard risk property market overall.

我認為，從我的角度來看，這是一個相當大的問題。我覺得很多地方仍然有利差空間，但下滑得相當快。我認為下滑最快的是再保險市場。接著會一路往下影響到暴露於巨災的財產險或E&S（超額及剩餘）財產險；而變化幅度最小的，可能是整體的核准（admitted）或標準風險（standard risk）財產險市場。

That having been said, that part of the market probably got the least bounce. But in my mind, the reinsurance market led the way up and the reinsurance market is leading the way down.

話雖如此，那一塊市場可能反彈幅度也最小。但在我看來，再保險市場帶頭上行，而再保險市場也正在帶頭下行。

Okay. That's helpful. And then I just had a follow-up. Professional lines, you mentioned pricing trying to bottom there? Looked like your strongest growth at Berkley since the first quarter of 2022 in professional lines this quarter. I don't think a lot of that was pricing. It seems like exposure grew. Do you anticipate seeing further opportunities in professional lines? And is there any other color you could provide on the quarter?

了解。這很有幫助。我還有一個追問。關於專業險種，你提到那邊的定價似乎正試圖觸底？看起來你們本季在Berkley的專業險種成長，是自2022年第一季以來最強的一次。我不認為其中很多是來自定價。看起來更像是曝險增加。你是否預期在專業險種還會看到更多機會？以及你能否就本季提供更多說明？

Sure. So I think professional is a pretty broad category. I tried to fashion my comments around two areas that gave us reason for pause. D&O, particularly public D&O and certain components of the EPLI market. That having been said, a lot of the growth that you saw on the professional front, much of it came from outside of the United States.

當然。我認為專業險是一個相當廣泛的類別。我試著把我的評論聚焦在兩個讓我們需要稍微停下來觀察的領域。D&O（董監事責任險），特別是公開市場的D&O，以及EPLI（僱傭行為責任險）市場的某些組成部分。不過話說回來，你在專業險端看到的成長，很大一部分來自美國以外的市場。

My earlier comments were really focused on the US market. So that's really what I can offer on that. As far as the places specifically where we think it's the best opportunity, that's not something we're going to unpack publicly.

我先前的評論其實主要聚焦在美國市場。所以我能提供的大概就是這些。至於我們認為具體哪些地方是最佳機會，這不是我們會在公開場合拆解說明的內容。

Alex Scott, Barclays.

Alex Scott，巴克萊。

First one is on reinsurance. I know you mentioned better to be a buyer than a seller at the moment. So I just wanted to take your temperature on what to expect there for the full year. And when we look at the growth numbers for this quarter, is there anything funky in there around like restatement premiums or anything like that, that we should consider? I just want to make sure I understand the right kind of run rate to that business.

第一個問題是關於再保險。我知道你提到目前當買方比當賣方更好。所以我想了解你對全年在那邊的預期。另外，當我們看本季的成長數字時，裡面是否有任何「怪怪的」因素，例如保費重述（restatement premiums）之類的，值得我們留意？我只是想確保我理解這項業務正確的運行水準（run rate）。

Nothing funky, to use your words, in the reinsurance numbers. And I think it's just a reflection of market conditions from our perspective, and you're seeing a combination certainly of a more competitive market. And simultaneously, you're seeing a couple of signs of cedents struggling to get their top line where they want it. So they're increasing their net. And that may feel good in the short run, we'll see how it works out in the long run.

用你的話說，再保險的數字裡沒有任何「怪怪的」東西。我認為這只是從我們角度反映市場狀況，你看到的是市場競爭加劇的組合效應。同時，你也看到一些跡象顯示分出公司（cedents）在把保費收入（top line）拉到他們想要的水準上遇到困難。所以他們提高自留（net）。短期看起來可能感覺不錯，但長期效果如何，我們再觀察。

Makes sense. Okay. I wanted to come back to the casualty reserves a little bit. I know this is sort of old news because you guys put out the triangles and so forth with the 4K results, sorry, the 4Q results. But would be interested if you have any comments you'd share on the other liability and just what we see in there related to some of the earlier years releasing on shorter tail casualty versus some building the reserves on longer tail.

了解。好。我想再回到意外險準備金（casualty reserves）一點。我知道這某種程度算是舊聞，因為你們在4K結果（抱歉，是第四季結果）時已經公布了三角表等資料。但我想知道你是否願意就「其他責任」（other liability）分享一些看法，以及我們在那裡看到的情況：一些較早年度在較短尾的意外險上釋放準備金，而較長尾的則在增加準備金。

I mean, what would you say to us to help us kind of wrap our arms around that and get more comfortable with the trends we see?

你會怎麼跟我們說，幫助我們更好地掌握這件事，並對我們看到的趨勢更有信心？

As far as that goes, I think that's probably a bigger conversation than probably makes sense to hold up everyone's time on it. We have put a fair amount of information out and supplements out. In addition to that, I think some of our folks in an effort to help piece it all together, have reached out to yourself and to others.

就這部分而言，我認為這可能是一個比起來更大的討論，可能不太適合在這裡占用大家的時間。我們已經發布了相當多的資訊與補充資料。此外，我想我們的一些同事也為了協助把整件事拼湊起來，已經聯繫了你以及其他人。

And if you'd like to further the conversation, we're happy to help you piece together the public information. Obviously, there's a bit of a constraint as to how far we can go, but we'd be very happy to pick that up with Alex offline, but I think that's not going to be a quick answer.

如果你想進一步討論，我們很樂意協助你把公開資訊串起來。當然，我們能談到什麼程度會有一些限制，但我們非常願意在會後再和Alex私下接續討論；不過我認為這不會是一個能快速回答的問題。

Andrew Kligerman, TD Cowen.

Andrew Kligerman，TD Cowen。

The first question is around the capital management, Rob. I'm trying to frame your appetite in terms of what's bigger? Is it the buyback, the onetime big dividend, special dividend? Or is it growth in a challenged market. Because as I look at what you did in the first quarter, $302 million, that's a lot of buyback as much as you did in all of 2024 when the stock price was about 20% lower and the earnings were very similar to what we're seeing today. So yes, where do you do a big dividend like you did in '24 or '25?

第一個問題是關於資本管理，Rob。我想釐清你們的偏好：哪一個更重要？是庫藏股回購、一次性的大額股利／特別股利？還是在一個具挑戰的市場中追求成長？因為我看你們第一季做了3.02億美元，這是很大的回購金額，幾乎跟你們2024年全年做的一樣多；而當時股價大約低了20%，獲利也和我們今天看到的非常相近。所以，是的，你們會在什麼情況下像在'24或'25那樣做一次大的股利？

And then where should that leverage ratio be? You said 22.6% is too low, where would you like it to level out? So sorry for the long wind on this one, but why the big buyback in the quarter? And what's the appetite buyback versus dividend and where will the leverage be? So a lot to unpack.

另外，槓桿比率應該落在哪裡？你說22.6%太低，你希望它穩定在什麼水準？抱歉這題有點冗長，但為什麼本季回購這麼大？以及回購相對於股利的偏好如何、槓桿會落在哪裡？有很多需要拆解。

Okay. Well, thank you for the question, Andrew. I guess a couple of things there. First off, as far as the 22.6%, I did not suggest or if I misspoke, shame on me, but I didn't suggest that we wanted to go lower or higher. I think what I tried to suggest to you is that we didn't see it going much lower than that. I'm not suggesting that we want it to go considerably higher. It really depends on the circumstances at any moment in time, and how we're positioning the business for what we see today and what we envision for tomorrow.

好的。謝謝你的問題，Andrew。我想有幾點。首先，關於22.6%，我並沒有表示——如果我口誤那是我的問題——但我並沒有表示我們想要更低或更高。我想我試著表達的是，我們不認為它會比那個水準再低很多。我並不是在說我們希望它顯著更高。這真的取決於任何特定時點的情況，以及我們如何為今天所見與對明天的想像來配置這項業務。

Number two, the point that I was trying to articulate earlier is that the opportunity for growth for the organization today and what we see in all likelihood tomorrow is, we think we'll be able to grow, but it's not going to be the growth rate that we enjoyed some number of years in the past or for some number of years. So that's just a reality of market conditions.

第二點，我先前想表達的是：就我們今天看到的、以及很可能明天會看到的情況而言，組織的成長機會——我們認為仍然能成長，但不會是過去某些年份或某段期間我們享有的那種成長率。這就是市場狀況的現實。

So again, will there be growth? Yes. Was there going to be the kind of growth we saw in the past? Probably not. So with that all having been said, the reality is with the company generating, call it, 20-plus percent returns or said differently, call it, flirting with $2 billion of net income that is a lot of capital that we need to figure out if we don't need it, how we're going to return it to our shareholders.

所以再說一次，會有成長嗎？會。會是我們過去看到的那種成長嗎？可能不會。在這些前提下，現實是公司正在創造——可以說——20%以上的報酬；或者換句話說，淨利接近20億美元，這是大量的資本。如果我們不需要這些資本，我們就必須思考要如何把它回饋給股東。

And that's just the reality. As far as what levers we utilize to return capital to shareholders, that's something that we grapple with every day and we think about what is in the best interest of all shareholders as far as -- whether it's special dividend, whether it's repurchase, whatever it may be.

而這就是現實。至於我們用哪些槓桿把資本回饋給股東，這是我們每天都在權衡的事情；我們會思考什麼才符合所有股東的最佳利益——不論是特別股利、股票回購，或其他任何方式。

As far as what we did in the past and when we bought back, I'm not -- we can take it offline and try and unpack what we did this quarter versus that quarter. A lot of it has to do with valuation at the moment in time. A lot of it has to do with how we see growth opportunity. So there's a lot of things that we consider.

至於我們過去做了什麼、以及我們何時進行回購，我不——我們可以私下再談，試著拆解我們這一季相較於那一季做了什麼。其中很大一部分與當下的估值有關。也有很大一部分與我們如何看待成長機會有關。所以我們會考量很多因素。

If you're looking for more guidance as to what we're specifically going to do to be returning this surplus of -- significant surplus of capital that we're generating at this today and expect to be generating tomorrow. I don't have a particular road map to share with you but it's certainly something that we will continue to be transparent about on a quarterly basis.

如果你是在尋求更進一步的指引，想知道我們具體會如何回饋這些——我們今天正在產生、並預期明天也會持續產生的可觀資本盈餘。我沒有一份特定的路線圖可以與你分享，但這確實是我們會在每一季持續透明揭露的事項。

Okay. And with regard to the gross versus net written premium, the net being 3.2% against the gross at 4.5%. Any read through there with the lower net? Any color that you can share on why that net was materially lower?

好的。另外，關於總簽單保費（gross）與淨簽單保費（net），淨的是 3.2%，對比總的 4.5%。淨的比較低，這裡有什麼可以解讀的嗎？你能否補充一些原因，為什麼淨的會明顯較低？

It's a combination of mix of business. And in addition to that, as we tried to flag earlier, there were opportunities to buy some reinsurance of what we believe to be attractive terms.

這是業務組合的綜合影響。此外，正如我們先前試著提示的，當時有機會以我們認為具吸引力的條件購買一些再保。

Got it. And just to sneak one last one. Prior year development, anything unusual in the casualty lines, plus or minus?

了解。最後再偷問一題。前期年度發展（prior year development），在意外險（casualty）線別有沒有什麼不尋常的，正負向都算？

Nothing particularly exciting. If you want to do a deeper dive at least to the extent we're able -- we'll share with you whatever we're allowed to share with you on that. And obviously, there'll be more detail available in the queue.

沒有什麼特別值得大驚小怪的。如果你想更深入探討——至少在我們能力所及的範圍內——我們會把允許分享的內容都分享給你。而且顯然在 Q（季報/10-Q）裡會有更多細節。

Michael Zaremski, BMO Capital Markets.

Michael Zaremski，BMO Capital Markets。

First question kind of pivoting back to social inflationary lines. Rob, loud and clear, we heard your comment, I think most would agree with you that the industry is still getting their hands around loss cost trend. Industry is doing very well, though overall.

第一個問題想把話題轉回社會通膨相關的線別。Rob，你的評論我們聽得很清楚；我想多數人會同意，整個產業仍在摸索損失成本趨勢（loss cost trend）。不過整體而言，產業表現確實非常好。

Would you be willing to kind of paint a broad brush on kind of how Berkley views loss trend in GL, umbrella, commercial auto, because like back to Alex Scott's questions, we all do see Berkley like peers adding truing up your loss picks a bit higher as well? So curious if you could add any color there.

你是否願意用比較概括的方式談談 Berkley 如何看待一般責任險（GL）、超額責任險（umbrella）、商用車險（commercial auto）的損失趨勢？因為回到 Alex Scott 的問題，我們也看到 Berkley 跟同業一樣，似乎也把損失假設（loss picks）往上調了一些。所以想請你補充一些看法。

If you're asking me to share with you what our trend assumptions are by product line, that's not something that we put out, generally speaking, for public consumption. As it relates to our loss picks, we are constantly looking at our data. And what is it telling us? We're constantly looking at industry data, and we're looking at other data sets as well, both traditional and nontraditional and trying to respond to that.

如果你是要我按產品線分享我們的趨勢假設，那一般來說我們不會對外公開到那個程度。至於我們的損失假設，我們一直在看自己的數據。它在告訴我們什麼？我們也持續看產業數據，並且也會看其他資料集，包含傳統與非傳統的，並嘗試據此做出回應。

We put it all into our sausage maker and then a lot of folks sit around and try and apply our judgment to the best of our ability. So I'm not sure what more I can add, Mike, at this stage other than we are very focused on making sure that our picks are appropriate. And based on what we conclude on that front, we are looking to actively respond from a rate perspective, terms and conditions.

我們把這些都丟進「絞肉機」裡，然後很多人坐下來，盡我們所能運用判斷。所以在這個階段我不確定還能補充什麼，Mike；除了我們非常專注於確保損失假設是恰當的。而根據我們在這方面的結論，我們會在費率、條款與條件上積極回應。

And I think one of the points I should have made earlier that we tend to not always focus on as much as we could or should is the role that jurisdiction or territory plays as a component of selection. So anyways, I suspect there's not a satisfactory answer amongst my commentary to you.

另外我想補充一點：我們往往沒有像我們可以或應該的那樣，充分聚焦在司法管轄區或地區（jurisdiction/territory）在承保選擇中的作用。所以，總之，我猜我的這些評論可能仍無法讓你滿意。

But the long and the short of it is, we just don't get into that level of detail by product line, what our view around trend is. But I can assure you, we are very focused on it, and we are responding in what we believe is a timely manner, not just for the picks, but the action that, that would suggest we should be taken from a selection and pricing perspective.

但簡而言之，我們不會按產品線揭露到那種細節層級，也就是我們對趨勢的看法。不過我可以向你保證，我們非常專注於此，而且我們相信自己回應得很及時——不只是調整損失假設，也包括從承保選擇與定價角度來看，這些結論所暗示我們應採取的行動。

Got it. That's fair. Yes, I just thought worth asking some of your peers have reluctantly, I guess, disclosed some broad-brush trends. Just kind of pivoting back to the debt-to-cap discussion. And maybe I'll try it another way, you gave the context earlier, but we can see, as you kind of alluded to, your very long-term average, debt-to-cap escalates, low 20s, mid-30s, but it's averaged 30-plus.

了解。這樣也合理。是的，我只是覺得值得一問，因為你們有些同業雖然不太情願，但也披露了一些概括性的趨勢。再把話題轉回負債對資本比（debt-to-cap）的討論。也許我換個方式問：你先前提供了背景，但我們也看到，如你所提到的，你們非常長期的平均水準，負債對資本比在低 20% 到中 30% 之間波動，但平均是 30% 以上。

So can you maybe remind us, are there like circumstances when you are increasing your leverage, is it when you feel there's -- you're very bullish about the marketplace, or any additional context you think worth mentioning?

所以你能否提醒我們：在什麼情況下你們會提高槓桿？例如當你們對市場非常看多時，或是有其他你覺得值得補充的背景？

The answer is that when we see opportunity in the market, we are very happy to, in the short run, flex that leverage up. But quite frankly, we are very comfortable where we are today, but we certainly have the ability to flex it up if the opportunity presented itself.

答案是：當我們看到市場機會時，我們很樂意在短期內把槓桿彈性拉高。但坦白說，我們對目前的水準非常自在；不過如果機會出現，我們確實有能力把槓桿往上調。

Bob Huang, Morgan Stanley.

Bob Huang，Morgan Stanley。

So my first question is also on the capital side in a different way, right. I think you talked about willingness to grow your business, you clearly have capital. Is there some way to think about the balance between growing inorganically versus buyback and dividends? Are there lines with --

我的第一個問題也是關於資本，但角度不同。我想你提到你們願意擴大業務，你們顯然也有資本。有沒有什麼方式可以思考：非有機成長與回購、股利之間的平衡？是否有某些線別--

When you say, Bob, what -- to make sure I'm following, when you say inorganically as opposed to organically, are you talking about like M&A?

Bob，你說的——為了確保我理解正確——你說的非有機成長相對於有機成長，是指像併購（M&A）那樣嗎？

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes. So like if we think like it does M&A make sense for you guys? Are there lines where you think M&A makes sense?

是的，先生。是的，先生。是。所以像是，如果我們思考併購對你們是否有意義？是否有某些線別你們覺得併購是合理的？

It's certainly some -- most things at investment bankers are out trying to sell, we get a phone call on. Most of the time when you hear about a transaction, we're already somewhat aware of it because we got the phone call. But as we've shared with some, we tend to err on the side of being cautious and cheap. And we recognize that most M&A transactions in this industry, not all but most. If folks could do it all over again, at least the buyers, they probably wouldn't.

確實有些——投資銀行家在外面推銷的大多數標的，我們都會接到電話。多數時候，當你聽到某筆交易時，我們其實已經多少知道了，因為我們先接到了電話。但正如我們也跟一些人分享過的，我們往往寧可保守、也寧可出價便宜。我們也認知到，這個產業的大多數併購交易——不是全部，但大多數——如果能重來一次，至少買方可能不會再做。

So I would never say never. We certainly look at things from time to time, but we are very comfortable with the organic growth model. We are pretty disciplined in how we operate the business, and we are willing to be patient because of this philosophy around risk and return. But again, you never know what tomorrow will bring, but there's a reason why we have not been historically active on that front.

所以我不會說永遠不做。我們確實會不時看看一些機會，但我們對有機成長模式非常滿意。我們在經營上相當自律，也願意保持耐心，因為我們對風險與報酬有這樣的理念。但同樣地，你永遠不知道明天會帶來什麼；不過我們過去在這方面不算活躍，是有原因的。

Really appreciate that. My second question is on the growth side of things, right? And this is something that's been asked somewhat. And I'm just curious, in the beginning of the call, you kind of talked about the market is in a greedy environment, so to speak, right?

非常感謝。我第二個問題是關於成長面向的事情，對吧？而這個問題之前也有人多少問過。我只是好奇，在電話會議一開始，你有點提到市場處於一種所謂「貪婪」的環境，對吧？

And as you think about pivoting to growth, are there areas where you feel the market maybe is too greedy and then you just kind of have to avoid? Are there areas where you think maybe the market is too cautious, and it represents a very big opportunity for you or a semi big opportunity for you? Just maybe if you can give us a little bit more of a breakdown there.

當你們思考轉向成長時，有沒有一些領域你覺得市場可能太貪婪，因此你們就得避開？又有沒有一些領域你覺得市場可能太過謹慎，反而代表對你們而言是一個非常大的機會，或至少是一個不小的機會？如果可以的話，能否請你再多拆解說明一下。

So the answer is -- and again, maybe I created more confusion than clarity with my opening comments and apologies for that. There is no doubt that if we want to use a broad brush, the market is overall more competitive today than it was a year ago, let alone two years ago or three years ago. That having been said, there are still pockets particularly within certain aspects of the liability space that offer some what we believe is attractive opportunities as far as available margins.

答案是——而且再次強調，也許我在開場的評論造成了更多困惑而非釐清，對此致歉。毫無疑問，如果用比較概括的方式來說，整體市場今天比一年前更具競爭性，更不用說兩年前或三年前。話雖如此，在某些領域仍有一些空間，特別是在負債端的某些部分，我們認為就可取得的利潤率而言，仍提供一些具吸引力的機會。

It is not as broadly available as it once was, but it is still there. The shorter tail lines, not all, but much of them have become notably more competitive and certain aspects of the liability lines have become more competitive.

它不像過去那樣普遍存在，但仍然有。短尾期的險種——不是全部，但其中很大一部分——競爭明顯加劇，而責任險線的某些面向也變得更具競爭性。

But because of the breadth of our offering, we are still able to find opportunities where we still think that there are attractive margins that are available and attractive enough to the point that we are willing to take our foot off of the rate pedal a little bit, which is why I'm suggesting as our colleagues are contemplating that and pivoting their behavior, there is a likelihood that you will see some level of growth that is coming from these niche opportunities.

但由於我們產品提供的廣度，我們仍能找到一些機會；在那些地方，我們仍認為可取得具吸引力的利潤率，而且吸引力高到讓我們願意稍微把「費率油門」鬆一點。

And we saw our colleagues pivoting more and more throughout the quarter, which is why I was suggesting to -- I believe it was a lease earlier that January, the growth was less relative to March, and that was primarily a result of our colleagues pivoting, reminding you and others that we are oftentimes quoting 90 days out in advance.

而且我們看到同事在整個季度中越來越多地做出轉向；因此我才會向——我想是先前的一位（提問者）——建議說，一月的成長相較三月較弱，主要是因為同事在轉向。

So it takes time for that pivot to convert into binders or written premium. What does that mean for Q2? Honestly, I can't promise anything. I can only share with you what the narrative is that's going on within our organization, and how we are seeing in the marketplace, and how we are adjusting our approach.

所以這樣的轉向需要時間才能轉化為承保確認（binder）或已簽單保費。那對第二季意味著什麼？老實說，我無法保證任何事。我只能跟你分享我們組織內部正在發生的敘事、我們如何看待市場，以及我們如何調整我們的方法。

Tracy Benguigui, Wolfe Research.

Tracy Benguigui，Wolfe Research。

Since casualty reinsurance never got the same bounce as you saw on property reinsurance, I'm curious, is this business rate adequate now, or is it approaching rate inadequacy?

由於意外險再保並沒有像財產險再保那樣出現同等幅度的反彈，我想了解的是：這塊業務的費率現在足夠嗎？還是正在接近費率不足？

So I think you would have heard for some number of quarters or beyond us ******** and moaning about the casualty reinsurance marketplace, and how we didn't think ceding commissions made sense, and that's a pretty broad brush that I'm using there. So if we're writing the business, we believe that it's an acceptable margin.

所以我想你在過去好幾個季度甚至更久，應該都聽過我們********抱怨意外險再保市場，以及我們認為分出佣金（ceding commissions）不合理——我這裡用的是相當概括的說法。因此，如果我們承作這些業務，我們相信它有可接受的利潤率。

But as you would have seen, our casualty portfolio within reinsurance was down considerably in the quarter. And that is not just because -- not because we're charging less for the same exposure, it's because that book of business is shrinking. I can't speak to the broader market. I can only talk to what our colleagues are doing as I understand it.

但如你所見，我們再保中的意外險組合在本季度大幅下降。而這不只是——也不是因為我們對相同曝險收取更低的價格，而是因為那本業務正在縮小。我無法代表整體市場發言。我只能就我所理解的、我們同事正在做的事情來談。

Understood. Also, you mentioned potential upside from net investment income, and you also noted certain insurance pockets like casualty, you might prioritize growth over rate. So are you taking more of a total return approach when setting combined targets for your underwriters, maybe putting more weight on net investment income, which will allow you to grow?

了解。另外，你提到淨投資收益可能有上行空間，也提到某些保險的特定領域（例如意外險）你們可能會把成長優先於費率。所以你們在為核保人設定綜合率目標時，是否更採取「總報酬」的思維，例如更重視淨投資收益的貢獻，從而讓你們可以擴大成長？

The answer is no. We have a view on loss ratios. And to take your comment to an extreme, we, as an organization, have never subscribed to the notion of cash flow underwriting or anything akin to that. Are we conscious of what the contribution is from the investment portfolio? Of course, we are. We are acutely aware of that, but we are not willing to throw the underwriting discipline out the window because of where interest rates are today. We look to each component of our economic model to stand on its own two feet and justify the capital that it utilizes.

答案是否定的。我們對損失率有自己的看法。把你的評論推到極端來說，我們作為一個組織，從未認同「現金流核保」或任何類似的概念。我們是否會留意投資組合的貢獻？當然會。我們非常清楚這點，但我們不願意因為今天利率的位置，就把核保紀律拋諸腦後。我們希望經濟模型中的每個組成部分都能自立自強，並能為其所使用的資本提供合理性。

Mark Hughes, Truist Securities.

Mark Hughes，Truist Securities。

Rob, you mentioned that -- yes, you mentioned that the large standard carriers are ramping up their appetite, you saw a step up in competition. Is that largely on the casualty side you're referring to? Is that influencing the balance in the E&S and standard markets? A little more on that would be interesting.

Rob，你提到——是的，你提到大型標準型保險公司正在提高風險偏好，你看到競爭加劇。你主要指的是意外險那一側嗎？這是否正在影響 E&S（超額及剩餘險）與標準市場之間的平衡？如果能再多談一點會很有意思。

They are active on the property side and to the extent that it's on the casualty side, ironically. It's been in pockets of the casualty market that are okay, but not great. So it's really bizarre. They're not going after the good stuff. They're going after the marginal stuff. And in some cases, I mean, they're taking it for 30% off, which is bizarre because they could have had it for 10% off.

他們在財產險那一側很活躍；至於意外險那一側，諷刺的是，他們是在意外險市場中一些「還可以但不算好」的區塊在積極出手。所以這真的很奇怪。他們沒有去追逐好的業務。他們在追逐邊際性的業務。而且在某些情況下，我是說，他們用打七折（便宜 30%）的價格在拿，這很奇怪，因為他們其實用打九折（便宜 10%）就能拿到。

So as we say around here, and certainly, my boss over here has reminded us, even long-tail business, you write it cheap enough tail business. So they'll -- they can keep going with 30% off, and we'll look forward to seeing it back in a couple of years.

所以就像我們這裡常說的——而且我這邊的老闆也提醒過我們——即便是長尾業務，你把它寫得夠便宜，它也會變成「尾巴很長的業務」。所以他們——他們可以繼續用打七折的價格做，我們也期待幾年後再看到這些業務回來。

Yes, very good. And then to the extent that you're so successful in pivoting to growth here in the second quarter, does that have a meaning for your loss picks? Could we potentially see loss picks a little higher?

是的，很好。另外，如果你們在第二季成功轉向成長、而且成效顯著，這對你們的損失率選取（loss picks）有什麼意義嗎？我們是否可能看到損失率選取略微提高？

Sorry, Mark, you broke up a little. Could you please repeat that?

抱歉，Mark，你剛剛有點斷訊。可以請你再重複一次嗎？

Yes. The question was if you do -- Rob, can you hear me now?

可以。問題是：如果你——Rob，你現在聽得到嗎？

Yes. Thank you.

聽得到。謝謝。

Okay. Well, very good. If you're successful in generating some better growth in the second quarter, does that have a meaningful loss picks, could you possibly see loss picks go a little bit higher if you're not pushing as much on rate?

好的。那很好。如果你們在第二季成功帶來更好的成長，這對損失率選取是否有實質影響？如果你們在費率上不那麼用力，損失率選取是否可能略微上調？

I don't think that, that would be something that I would lead to, in my view. I think what we're really seeing is that there are pockets of the business where we've been very, very focused on rate, and we think we have room, and maybe it will prove to be that the picks were -- had more room in them than we had originally anticipated. But we'll have to see with time.

我不認為那會是我會預先導向的結論，就我看法而言。我認為我們真正看到的是，在某些業務區塊，我們一直非常、非常專注在費率上，而我們覺得我們有空間；也許最後證明，我們的選取——其中的空間比我們原先預期的還要大。但這需要時間來驗證。

David Motemaden, Evercore ISI.

David Motemaden，Evercore ISI。

Can you guys hear me?

你們聽得到我嗎？

Yes. Thank you.

聽得到。謝謝。

Great. So just back on the topic of just maybe letting up a little bit on the rate increases in some lines. And I may have missed this, so I apologize in advance. But is there any like broad class of business that you had referred to? Is that short tail, is it casualty, is it professional lines? I'm not looking for like specific sub lines within those, but I was hoping you could elaborate on like a little bit just which broad area you think that you guys might have opportunities to let up on price and maybe we can see growth accelerate?

很好。那回到剛才的話題，也許在某些業務線的費率調升上稍微放緩一點。我可能漏聽了，所以先跟您致歉。但你們先前提到的是否有某一大類業務？是短尾業務、是意外險，還是專業責任險？我不是要問那些底下更細的子險種，但希望你能稍微多談談，你們認為在哪些大方向上可能有機會在價格上稍微鬆動，並且可能讓成長加速？

Yes. We just haven't put that detail out there. We'll think about if there's something we can tuck into the queue. That could be helpful along those lines. But at this stage, we just haven't put anything out there yet, thank you.

是的。我們目前還沒有把那樣的細節對外公布。我們會想想看是否有什麼內容可以放進後續的安排裡。那樣可能會在這方面有所幫助。但就現階段而言，我們還沒有對外發布任何資訊，謝謝。

Got it. And then the growth in the insurance business in the short-tail lines continues to tick along at 5%. I was a little surprised at that, just given the pricing pressure on the commercial property side. So I was hoping maybe you could unpack that a little bit more for us and just how we should think about the durability of the growth there.

了解。另外，保險業務在短尾業務線的成長仍然維持在 5% 左右。考量到商業財產險那邊的定價壓力，我對此有點意外。所以想請你們再多拆解一下，我們應該如何看待那邊成長的持續性與韌性。

I think that you're focusing on it through the lens of commercial, and I would encourage you to broaden your lens to incorporate our A&H business that we've spoken of in the past as well as our private client business.

我認為你是從商業險的角度在看這件事；我會建議你把視角放寬一些，把我們過去也談過的 A&H（意外與健康）業務，以及我們的私人客戶業務也納入考量。

Got it. And then maybe just one more, maybe just a high-level question. I think you talked about the average life of your reserves at about four years. I was a little surprised that it hasn't really changed that much. I think it's been there around like the last few years.

了解。那再問最後一個，偏高層次的問題。我記得你提到你們準備金的平均存續期間大約是四年。我有點意外它其實沒有太大變化。我覺得過去幾年大概都在這個水準附近。

But I guess I was wondering, it does feel like claims durations are extending. So I was hoping maybe just philosophically, just taking a step back, what you guys are seeing. Do you think we're seeing more stability here in claims payment patterns as we think about looking through the reserves?

但我在想的是，感覺理賠期間正在拉長。所以我希望你們從理念或哲學層面、退一步來談談你們看到的情況。當我們透過準備金來觀察時，你們是否認為理賠支付型態正變得更穩定？

I think that at this stage, we feel pretty comfortable that -- maybe just taking half a step back, David. I think that we all know that the industry got caught a bit flat-footed with inflation, particularly social inflation, and it's been a bit of a process of catch-up. I think that picture, as we've all discussed ad nauseam was clouded by COVID for us to a great extent.

我認為在這個階段，我們相當有信心——也許先退半步來看，David。我想大家都知道，整個產業在通膨上有點措手不及，尤其是社會通膨，而這段時間一直在追趕調整。我認為那個情勢，如同我們都已經反覆討論到不行的程度，在很大程度上又被 COVID 影響而變得更不清晰。

And I think at this stage, the industry and ourselves included, have adopted and adapted to the new reality of the claims environment and what we see coming out of the legal environment.

而我認為在這個階段，整個產業（包括我們自己）已經採取並調整以因應理賠環境的新現實，以及我們從法律環境中看到的趨勢。

Joshua Shanker, Bank of America.

Joshua Shanker，美國銀行。

So I guess I want to talk about your go-to-market strategy or maybe the opposite go away from market strategy. As I see the decline in the reinsurance book. I'm trying to understand the complexion of your book. Sometimes people participate on syndicates. Sometimes you have some unique one-off deals. I know your program business is in the -- program management business in that reinsurance bucket, and that's probably seeing some competition from MGAs.

我想談談你們的市場進入策略，或者說相反的、退出市場的策略。因為我看到再保險業務組合在下滑。我試著理解你們業務組合的樣貌。有時候大家會參與共保團（syndicates）。有時候你們會做一些獨特的一次性交易。我知道你們的方案業務（program business）——也就是方案管理業務——是在再保險那個分類裡，而那塊可能正面臨來自 MGA 的一些競爭。

Can you talk about as the business is leaving, are you walking away? Is it being competed away? What's the process? And what exactly are you losing?

你能談談當業務流失時，是你們主動退出嗎？還是被競爭對手搶走？過程是怎麼樣的？你們到底流失了哪些業務？

A lot of -- the lion's share of what we're losing would be a treaty reinsurance business. And it's due to how we think about appropriate pricing. And it seems -- go ahead.

我們流失的——絕大部分——會是合約再保險（treaty reinsurance）業務。原因在於我們對合適定價的看法。而且看起來——請繼續。

I mean, on that, or are those are one-off deals that you're managing?

我的意思是，就這點而言，那些是你們在管理的一次性交易嗎？

No. They tend to be a subscription market, if you like, or a treaty that has multiple participants.

不是。它們通常是你所說的認購市場（subscription market），或是一個有多個參與方的合約再保險。

And so someone else is coming with the capital, you're walking away and there's plenty of --

所以是其他人帶著資本進來，你們退出，而市場上有足夠的--

Someone else either coming with the capital or the cedent is looking for better terms than we're prepared to offer and maybe they choose to keep it. Certainly, a trend that we're starting to see more of is cedents in some cases, if they can't get far better terms are looking to keep it as a way to bolster their own top line.

要嘛是其他人帶著資本進來，要嘛是分出公司（cedent）想要比我們願意提供的更好的條件，於是他們可能選擇保留自留。當然，我們開始更常看到的一個趨勢是：在某些情況下，如果分出公司拿不到更好的條件，他們會選擇把業務留在自己帳上，作為強化自身營收（top line）的一種方式。

And then switching to the competition from MGAs right now. It's obviously something we talked about in past calls. I mean, the insurance growth looks fairly healthy. Are you seeing less competition in the past, or is it as steady as ever?

那再切換到目前來自 MGA 的競爭。這顯然是我們在過去電話會議中談過的。我的意思是，保險業務的成長看起來相當健康。你們是看到競爭比以前少了，還是依舊一樣激烈？

No, we are not seeing the delegated authority model, MGA, MGU et cetera. We're not seeing that subside in any way at this time.

沒有，我們並沒有看到授權承保模式（delegated authority model）、MGA、MGU 等等在此時有任何消退的跡象。

And then one last one. As you're thinking about deployment of capital, obviously, returning capital is a big deal, but you've liked the yields in the market. Is there anything attractive in the alternative spaces compared to past quarters where you might be deploying money into more illiquid products?

最後一個問題。在你們思考資本部署時，顯然回饋資本很重要，但你們也喜歡市場上的殖利率。相較於過去幾季，在另類投資領域是否有任何更具吸引力的機會，讓你們可能把資金部署到更不具流動性的產品上？

We certainly have a participation in the alternative space. I would add that we do not have a participation in the private credit space, just to make sure there's no question about that. But right now, given what the public fixed income market is offering as far as yield, we don't feel much need to look beyond that.

我們確實有參與另類投資領域。我也要補充說明，我們沒有參與私募信貸（private credit）領域，先確保這點沒有任何疑問。但目前，考量到公開市場固定收益所提供的殖利率，我們不覺得有太大的必要去看固定收益之外的選項。

Katie Sakys, Autonomous Research.

Katie Sakys，Autonomous Research。

Really quickly, how do you describe your approach to managing commercial auto exposures today versus your comments last quarter on shrinking exposures. I think with your very frank description of the auto liability market today, I'm just kind of curious as to what's giving you confidence in the growth that you're still showing in that book, but it's not resulting in adverse selection.

很快問一下，你會如何描述你們目前管理商業車險曝險的做法，相較於你們上季提到要縮減曝險的評論？我想以你們對當前汽車責任險市場非常坦率的描述來看，我有點好奇：是什麼讓你們對該業務仍呈現的成長有信心，同時又不會導致逆選擇（adverse selection）？

Well, just to be clear, the growth that we are experiencing is premium, not unit growth or exposure growth. So the rate that we are taking far exceeds the growth rate. So the exposure is shrinking and the rate is increasing. So the growth that you saw on page, whatever it is of the release, it's all rate and then some.

嗯，先說清楚，我們所經歷的成長是保費成長，不是件數成長或曝險成長。所以我們調升的費率遠遠超過成長率。因此曝險是在縮減，而費率在上升。所以你在新聞稿某一頁看到的成長，不管是哪一頁，那全部都是費率帶來的，甚至還不只如此。

Yes. Makes sense. And then any new news on Berkley Embedded. I realize it's only been a couple of months, and I might be ahead of my skis here. But are there any products that have gone live with that? And if so, how are you guys thinking about channel conflict with your traditional distribution partners there.

是的。合理。那 Berkley Embedded 有沒有什麼新消息？我知道才過幾個月，我可能問得太早。但是否有任何產品已經上線？如果有，你們如何看待與你們傳統通路夥伴之間的通路衝突？

So as far as Berkley Embedded, they are off to a great start, and they do have one product offering that is chugging along in the consumer space. And as it relates to channel conflict, right now, the type of business that we are entertaining through that avenue is really not something that we would be accessing in any other way.

就 Berkley Embedded 而言，他們起步非常順利，而且確實有一個產品在消費者市場端持續推進。至於通路衝突，目前我們透過那個途徑所承作的業務類型，基本上不是我們用其他方式能夠接觸到的。

That having been said, there is a reality, as we've talked about in the past, once upon a time, there was a defined swim lane for carriers, and there was a defined swim lane for distribution. And I think what we're seeing more and more of is those lines are getting somewhat blurred.

話雖如此，正如我們過去談過的，現實是：曾幾何時，保險公司（承保方）有其明確的「泳道」，而通路／分銷也有其明確的「泳道」。而我認為我們越來越看到的是，這些界線正在變得有些模糊。

And while we are very committed to our traditional distribution, ultimately in the end, our focus also has to be on the insured, and we need to be willing to meet insured where they wish to be met.

雖然我們非常致力於我們的傳統通路，但歸根結底，我們的重點也必須放在被保險人身上，我們需要願意在被保險人希望被服務的地方與他們接觸。

Andrew Andersen, Jefferies.

Andrew Andersen，Jefferies。

Just on workers' comp, growth has been a little bit lighter there the last couple of quarters. To what extent is there an opportunity for that to pick up again, or is there may be a binding constraint here you're thinking about with regards to price or medical trend uncertainty?

就勞工補償險而言，過去幾個季度的成長稍微偏弱一些。在多大程度上，這有機會再度回升？或者你們是否認為在價格或醫療趨勢不確定性方面，可能存在某種承保／簽單上的約束？

Yes. We're just -- I can't tell you exactly what the next quarter will be, but generally speaking, directionally, we have had somewhat of a defensive posture with much -- not all, but much out of the comp market that we participate in. And we're looking forward to that market, experiencing some type of firming at some point. And when it does, I think you will see us expand. And hopefully, the opportunity will be there for us to expand dramatically.

是的。我們只是——我無法精確告訴你下一季會如何，但一般而言、就方向性來看，對於我們參與的勞工補償險市場中很大一部分（不是全部），我們採取了相對防禦性的姿態。我們也期待該市場在某個時間點出現某種程度的轉強（firming）。而當它發生時，我想你會看到我們擴張。並且希望屆時我們有機會大幅擴張。

Got it. And I know we've touched on this a bit, but just kind of high level here. When you're talking about the standard or national carriers taking back some business, would you describe this as more of normal ebb and flow, or are the standard national carriers may be going deeper into E&S and more into lines of business that have been stickier in the E&S channel historically?

了解。我知道我們稍微談到過這點，但我想從較高層次再問一下。當你談到標準或全國性承保公司收回一些業務時，你會把這描述為較正常的潮起潮落，還是標準的全國性承保公司可能更深入進入 E&S（超額及剩餘險）市場，並更多切入那些在歷史上於 E&S 通路中黏著度較高的險種？

I don't think that they are going to derail the E&S marketplace, certainly not today and likely not tomorrow. But we certainly do see them more present in the market with an appetite that is seemingly a bit broader today than it was yesterday.

我不認為他們會讓 E&S 市場脫軌，至少今天不會，明天大概也不會。但我們確實看到他們在市場上的存在感更強，而且其承保胃納（appetite）看起來比昨天更廣一些。

And at times, it would appear as though they are misclassifying risks. I don't know how else you could get to some of the rates that they are entertaining. And we'll have to see how it unfolds. I think it's, again, more pronounced in some of the shorter tail lines. It exists, but less visible in some of the liability lines.

而且有時看起來他們似乎在錯誤分類風險。不然我不知道還能怎麼解釋他們願意接受的某些費率。我們得看看後續如何發展。我認為這種情況在某些短尾（short tail）險種上更為明顯。在某些責任險線別中也存在，但可見度較低。

Meyer Shields, Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods.

Meyer Shields，Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods。

I appreciate you taking my call. First question, I guess, Rob, last quarter and this quarter, you talked a little bit about taking the collective foot off the gas in terms of pricing in some lines. Should we think of that as a top-down directive or is that bubbling up from the various underwriters?

感謝你接聽我的提問。第一個問題，我想，Rob，上季和這季你都稍微提到在某些險種的定價上，整體而言有點「把油門放鬆」。我們應該把這理解為由上而下的指令，還是由各個核保人員（underwriters）在第一線反映上來的？

Look, we, just to be clear, are not a top-down organization in that sense. We certainly pay attention, we ask lots of questions. We want to understand. But we are not top-down directing our colleagues throughout the operations as to what they should or shouldn't charge. We look at the data and grapple with them. But again, this is an organization where those types of decisions are driven by our colleagues that run the various businesses, and that's just part of our philosophy.

你看，先說清楚，我們在這個意義上不是一個由上而下的組織。我們當然會關注，我們會問很多問題。我們希望理解狀況。但我們不會由上而下地指示營運端的同仁該收多少或不該收多少。我們會看數據並與之周旋、深入研判。但再說一次，這是一個由負責各項業務的同仁來驅動這類決策的組織，這也是我們理念的一部分。

That having been said, we do use group data that gets aggregated and other data sources to bring it to bear and put it in the hands of our colleagues running the businesses, so they have as good an information set as possible to make their decisions.

話雖如此，我們確實會使用彙總後的集團數據以及其他資料來源，把這些資訊帶進來並交到負責各項業務的同仁手上，讓他們在做決策時能擁有盡可能完整且優質的資訊集合。

Okay. That's very helpful. And then very briefly, whether it's Lloyd's or Reinsurance business, does Berkley have any exposure to the Middle East conflict?

好的。這非常有幫助。接著很簡短地問一下，不論是勞合社（Lloyd's）或再保業務，Berkley 是否有任何中東衝突相關曝險？

Nothing of consequence and to our -- we're just not a big player in the war space. We're a very modest player in certain aspects of the marine market, and we are very active users of war exclusions. Alexandra, anything else?

沒有任何重要的曝險；而且就我們而言——我們本來就不是戰爭險領域的大型參與者。我們在海事保險市場的某些面向只是非常小規模的參與者，而且我們非常積極使用戰爭除外條款（war exclusions）。Alexandra，還有其他要補充的嗎？

Brian Meredith, UBS.

Brian Meredith，UBS。

Rob, l will keep it to just one question here. I'm just curious, in your growth thoughts for the year here. Is any of that related to perhaps your incubator type businesses transitioning in the segments. And I'm thinking something like the Berkley Edge. Maybe you can talk a little bit about Berkley Edge, and how is that doing so far?

Rob，我這裡只問一個問題。我只是好奇，就你們今年的成長想法而言，是否有任何部分與你們類似「孵化器」型的新業務在各事業群中轉入／過渡有關？我想到的是像 Berkley Edge 這樣的業務。也許你可以談談 Berkley Edge，以及到目前為止表現如何？

So I think that some of the new ventures are off to a good start, but relative to the overall size of the group, while we look forward to their meaningful contributions, it's not likely in the short run that they are going to get enough traction to move the needle for the group on their own. I think the opportunity is certainly going to come from their contributions, but will come from many others throughout the organization.

我認為一些新事業的起步不錯，但相對於集團的整體規模而言，雖然我們期待它們做出有意義的貢獻，但短期內它們不太可能單靠自身就獲得足夠動能來對集團整體產生顯著影響（move the needle）。我認為機會當然會來自它們的貢獻，但也會來自組織內許多其他單位的貢獻。

As far as Berkley Edge, they are up, they are running, and they are off to a good start. But just to level set expectations, it was a standing start that they've begun from, but we're very pleased with the progress that they're making, and we think it's an outstanding group of people that are going to bring value to distribution customers and certainly to capital.

至於 Berkley Edge，他們已經啟動、開始運作，而且開局良好。但為了校準大家的期待，他們是從零起步（standing start）開始的；不過我們對他們目前取得的進展非常滿意，我們也認為那是一支非常出色的團隊，將能為通路客戶帶來價值，當然也能為資本帶來價值。

There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back to Mr. Rob Berkley for closing remarks.

目前沒有其他問題。我現在把電話交回給 Rob Berkley 先生做結語。

Alexandra, thank you very much for your assistance this evening. Thank you to all who tuned in for, again, your interest in the company and the questions. As I hope people would have gathered by any measure, a very solid quarter and perhaps equally, if not more exciting, how well positioned the business is to continue to grow, prosper and generate value for stakeholders.

Alexandra，非常感謝你今晚的協助。也感謝所有收聽的各位，再次感謝大家對公司的關注與提問。我希望大家無論從任何角度都能看出來：這是一個非常穩健的季度；而且同樣、甚至更令人振奮的是，公司的業務在持續成長、繁榮並為利害關係人創造價值方面，具備非常良好的定位。

We look forward to speaking with you over the summer. Thank you very much. Have a good evening.

我們期待在夏季期間再與各位交流。非常感謝。祝各位晚安。

This concludes today's call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.

今天的電話會議到此結束。感謝各位參與。您現在可以掛線。